Some salary cap tweaks that would make for a better NFL

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I was having a discussion with my brother-in-law, and he told me some of the salary cap rules they have in some other professional leagues, such as MLS and the NBA. So, I thought it would be great if the NFL would consider some of these:

1. The "true" franchise player. The NFL could allow one team to designate their "franchise player." Unlike the stigma that the tag now has, which basically is a forced year of service from a player, this tag allows you to pay one player as much money as you want with only a portion of it going against the cap. For example, the Saints could pay Drew Brees $30M this season, but only $20M goes against the cap. You could base it on a flat number or a percentage.

The benefit is that teams can keep the face of their franchise without crippling other positions, and the bitterness and greed that is so often associated with star players will come to an end. This, of course, could only be applied to one player per team. Another alternative is to have the "maximum contract" to one player, similar to the NBA, where the player makes max dollar and can't go higher (but again, the cap number would not be as high.)

2. The "draft" discount. Quite simply, if you draft a player and he's been a member of your team for his entire career, this could also be a cap discount. As much as I despise the Steelers, I think it's a shame that they can't afford to keep all the players they've drafted. The Steelers never pick up free agents, so their goal is really just to keep their own players. Mike Wallace will probably be a free agent next year because the Steelers cannot afford him. Their money is tied up in other players they've drafted and groomed. The Patriots will likely have a similar problem when Gronk and Hernandez both want huge deals in a couple of years.

The benefit is that teams can keep their drafted players and the turnstile of free agency is reduced. Teams can root for the same player throughout his career. You could potentially make other cap savings clauses for players like Wes Welker, who has been a Patriot for the last four years (a long time in an NFL career), and/or use a sliding scale so that each year of service with a team results in more cap savings.

In both cases, the following would happen: the team would want to take advantage of the salary cap savings and would likely re-sign their key players, and the player would not want to risk going onto the open market, where teams would then have to pay real cap dollars towards that signing.

Well, that's all I have so far. Let me know if you agree that the NFL should make a salary cap system that favors teams keeping their current rosters intact, especially the impact players that are often fan favorites.

 

[Sicilian]

I'm all for these ideas in theory, but I think the problem would be where this extra money is coming from. For example, it either means that the cap has to come down (in which case the tough decisions will still have to be made, and players will still be jumping teams) or more money will be going to the players, which means a concession will need to be made back to the owners.

 

[Pujo]

I'm a fan of keeping it simple. Otherwise we'll have something akin to the NBA's Larry Bird exception, early Bird exception, non-Bird exception, traded player exception, etc.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I think some salary cap tweaks to match the NFL would benefit those other leagues more than tweaking the best working cap formula in pro sports to match seriously flawed approaches of other leagues. Some of whom are in serious financial trouble and most of whom can only dream of the level of financial stability and ever increasing popularity this league has ascended to.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I'm a fan of keeping it simple. Otherwise we'll have something akin to the NBA's Larry Bird exception, early Bird exception, non-Bird exception, traded player exception, etc.

The ideas seem good at first but they increase the cost of the game to the owners to the detriment of some unless the cap baseline gets shrunk to accommodate this which I think is a bad idea and the union rightfully should oppose.

 

[Gronkandez]

Aren't these two ideas basically the same?

I like the idea(s),which I believe they have in the NBA, however, the NFL owners aren't willing to give up a dime of profit so it will NEVER happen. I don't like the franchise tag in it's current form because it basically screws over the best player.

I disagree about the Steelers. They have enough money to keep their drafted players, since there is a salary cap. They just choose not to spend like the Redskins. The Pirates on the other hand...

 

[Ron Sellers]

I don't see how scenario two is (or should be) an issue to most teams. Take the example of the Steelers as outlined above: since they do not go out and spend money on free agents, shouldn't that mean that they should have more money available to re-sign their own players?



The biggest thing with both of these concepts is that it would allow good teams to retain talent. So the question really becomes, is that what is best for the NFL? For fans of teams like the Patriots we're obviously going to say yes, but is that really better for the league as a whole?

On one hand casual fans could get to know the best teams better, and high-level rivalries would flourish (think Packers-Browns of the late 50s/early 60s, followed by Packers-Cowboys, Cowboys-Steelers, Cowboys-49ers, etc.)

On the other hand if you are going to have teams that stay highly competitive for long periods of time, then you're also going to have teams who really bad for long periods of time as well.


The NFL has tweaked their business model so that fans of nearly all 32 teams can enter a season with high hopes, and with that a lot of interest in each and every upcoming season. That formula has worked very well as the league has generated more viewers and more revenue than any other North American sport. Why would they want to mess with that? As the saying goes, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.