Changing the structure of the NFL draft

[PonyExpress]

PonyExpress, first I just want to say that I love this topic! I don't agree with your particular proposal, but it's certainly possible that there are better/more exciting ways to conduct the draft.

I've already stated my objections to the "expert" ordering process. IMO the slotting of players must be determined by the market, which is to say by teams actually choosing one player over another.

So here's a simple variant: a point system as you suggest, but what you're bidding for is just the chance to choose the next player. Still plenty of pitfalls, but it least it gets you out of the pre-ordering business.

It's funny you mention that! My buddy was reading the baord, called me up and suggested the very same thing not 20 minutes ago. You're all outsmarting me! Honestly I still like the "auction order", but I'm a stubborn bastard.

BTW- thanks for taking the time to read my meanderings.

EDIT: actually the more I'm thinking about it the more I love it. Same idea, except teams simply bid on the right to a slot instead of a player, and then draft the player they want once they win the auction. It does remove the human drama quite a bit, because teams are bidding on a slot instead of a face on camera. But it's more like a poker game where nobody sees the other guy's cards until he lays them on the table!

It is cleaner and more aesthetic in this sense: The salary order will almost exactly mirror the order the players come off the board. And it is much simpler, which means it is much BETTER. Great work Patchick! And my friend PV, if he reads this.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

It's funny you mention that! My buddy was reading the baord, called me up and suggested the very same thing not 20 minutes ago. You're all outsmarting me! Honestly I still like the "auction order", but I'm a stubborn bastard.

BTW- thanks for taking the time to read my meanderings.

EDIT: actually the more I'm thinking about it the more I'm starting to like it. Same idea, except teams simply bid on the right to a slot instead of a player, and then draft the player they want once they win the auction. It does remove the human drama from the auction quite a bit, because teams are bidding on a slot instead of a face on camera. But it does answer objections from critics in a reasonable way, offering a compromise to those who otherwise find the system palatable.

It is cleaner and more aesthetic in this sense: The salary order will almost exactly mirror the order the players come off the board. Great work Patchick! And my friend PV, if he reads this.

I like Patchick's suggestion. [I've seen a variant of this proposed somewhere in which the "draft order" currently used in the first round would instead be used to pick a slot in the draft. So, for example, the 'lphins would have first choice of slots 1-32, the Rams the second choice, etc.]

Here's an interesting question, though: would you set limits on the number of players a team can draft in any "round"? Or, perhaps, you could give each team their round 1 allotment right away, and then add the "remaining" points at the end of the round, for use in all remaining rounds (e.g., going by the current chart, the Pats would get 1500 points for use in round 1, and then another 700-800 points--depending on how you deal with forfeits, etc.--would be added to any remainder for the remaining rounds).

 

[VJCPatriot]

Well the problem with this bidding system, is that the reason teams become bad is they usually have bad management, and a team might do something stupid like oh... bidding all their draft points on one player. Then having nothing left over to draft others. But there's really no way to regulate human stupidity, so instead let's deal without via structure.

1. The bidding is only for picks, not for players.
2. There is a cap on points that can be bid in each round. There will also be a minimum bid amount in each round.
3. In case of a tie bid, the winner is the team with the worst record, unless they have already made a selection in the current round, in which case they would lose the bid to other tied bids.
4. The bids will be blind. The commissioner will announce the winner of the bid, then nonwinning bid points will be refunded to the losing teams.

Ok let me explain point 2 in depth.

Let's say it is round 1 of auction day. The max bid will be 2600, and the min bid will be 590.

So if the team with the worst record in the NFL wants to ensure winning the bid for the #1 draft spot, they will have to bid at least 2600 points. Or they can enter the min bid of 590, essentially passing on pick #1 if anyone else bids above that amount.

Point 3, the tie bid rule is just for resolving conflicts in case bid points are tied. And I don't think it's fair for a team that has already gotten a pick in that round to get priority on another pick in the same round, even if they are bad, so that's the last part of the tiebreaker rule.

And so the auction will continue onwards like that according to the value chart until all draft slots are assigned. On draft day, the teams will pick according to the draft slots that they have won with their bidding. However, slot positions may be traded as normal, if they see a player they like falling but they are out of position to take him.

This basically alters the economics of the draft in that bad teams can choose to pass on high draft slots by bidding 590, and then bidding an unexpectedly high amount on medium draft positions, say 2000 points. They will then have more points left over to bid in later rounds, but will be capped on how much they can be bid by the round cap.

They would probably have to do a study to see how to allocate the points to make this work out fairly. But I believe the rules could work if the numbers are done right.

Really the only thing the auction, does imo is make it so a team doesn't have to "trade" if they want to get rid of a high draft pick. It all seems to be a little complex, and doesn't target the real problem imo.

The real growing problem with the draft is the way salaries are slotted, and basically agents have taken over the process, and made it difficult and very expensive to sign top rookie players. If you solve this issue properly, the complex blind-bidding, auction system becomes entirely immaterial and unnecessary.

 

[patchick]

Here's an interesting question, though: would you set limits on the number of players a team can draft in any "round"?

I think one of the most intriguing aspects of this is that there wouldn't be any "rounds" -- nobody knows when their team will pick next, so there's a lot of spectator drama.

Still not saying I like the idea, but it's certainly interesting!

 

[PonyExpress]

Well the problem with this bidding system, is that the reason teams become bad is they usually have bad management, and a team might do something stupid like oh... bidding all their draft points on one player. Then having nothing left over to draft others. But there's really no way to regulate human stupidity, so instead let's deal without via structure.

Such is life. The stupid suffer.

1. The bidding is only for picks, not for players.

Done.

2. There is a cap on points that can be bid in each round. There will also be a minimum bid amount in each round.

There are no rounds. Why place an artificial cap on anything? Let demand determine price

3. In case of a tie bid, the winner is the team with the worst record, unless they have already made a selection in the current round, in which case they would lose the bid to other tied bids.

The team with the worse record already is given a bigger budget. to win an auction they must use it.

4. The bids will be blind. The commissioner will announce the winner of the bid, then nonwinning bid points will be refunded to the losing teams.

No way. Knowing the competing bids is like knowing the pot in a poker tournament. It increases drama, ratings and interest. Clearly if you lose the bid you get your "value points" back.

Ok let me explain point 2 in depth.

Let's say it is round 1 of auction day. The max bid will be 2600, and the min bid will be 590.

So if the team with the worst record in the NFL wants to ensure winning the bid for the #1 draft spot, they will have to bid at least 2600 points. Or they can enter the min bid of 590, essentially passing on pick #1 if anyone else bids above that amount.

Not sure I see the need for this. Why must artificial caps be in place? Let demand determine the price.

Point 3, the tie bid rule is just for resolving conflicts in case bid points are tied. And I don't think it's fair for a team that has already gotten a pick in that round to get priority on another pick in the same round, even if they are bad, so that's the last part of the tiebreaker rule.

As I said earlier, bad teams are given bigger budgets for a reason: to win bidding wars.

And so the auction will continue onwards like that according to the value chart until all draft slots are assigned.

IMO the bidding for draft slots and the selection of the player should happen immediately, in the 10 minute time window between picks. That way every fan in the country would be paying attention to every slot for the whole draft. The drama would be open to the public and very compelling.

On draft day, the teams will pick according to the draft slots that they have won with their bidding. However, slot positions may be traded as normal, if they see a player they like falling but they are out of position to take him.

Slot positions cannot be traded. Trades are made current value points for future value points only.

This basically alters the economics of the draft in that bad teams can choose to pass on high draft slots by bidding 590, and then bidding an unexpectedly high amount on medium draft positions, say 2000 points. They will then have more points left over to bid in later rounds, but will be capped on how much they can be bid by the round cap.

They would probably have to do a study to see how to allocate the points to make this work out fairly. But I believe the rules could work if the numbers are done right.

Really the only thing the auction, does imo is make it so a team doesn't have to "trade" if they want to get rid of a high draft pick. It all seems to be a little complex, and doesn't target the real problem imo.

The real growing problem with the draft is the way salaries are slotted, and basically agents have taken over the process, and made it difficult and very expensive to sign top rookie players. If you solve this issue properly, the complex blind-bidding, auction system becomes entirely immaterial and unnecessary.

Some very interesting ideas, thanks for the input VJC!