biggest problem with the NFL

[Pats726]

FA has been great for the players. Previously, they were underpaid and held captive by lousy franchises (bosses) for their entire careers.

What I would change is that I would create optional cap relief for teams wishing to PAY long term vets more to retain them until retirement. My 'McGuinest' clause.

I agree with that...maybe after 9 years of service with a team, there would be a certain amount (based upon position) which up to that may be cap free...or some other formula. (A similar Larry Bird rule..) I agree that with FA that there is a loss of personality..but I think the NFL is closer to the past than in baseball OR basketball. In roundball, it is hard to keep track of players on ONE team much less 28 or more...which is another reason I don't like the NEW NBA. Same eith baseball, although that is hardly the only point with the game.

 

[Bill's Girl]

The biggest problem now is the lack of suitable candidates to replace the comissioner! It is shocking that they did not have anyone lined up! I'm not being political here, but how on earth is the governor of Florida suitable to become comish?? It could not have been a surpise that Tags was getting ready to retire.

I also HATE revenue sharing! Bob Kraft busts his ass to make this a championship caliber team and has to give his hard earned money to the Colts so they can sign our kicker!?!?!? I know MLB is doing something similar but in a league with a salary cap like the NFL has this idea is ridiculous!!

 

[Miguel]

Firstly, a question. Are you basically are saying that because the two parties, the NFL and NFLPA, agree about rookies, that it is basically no one else's business??

No, I am just questioning whether or not the rookie pay scheme is actually a problem given that those in the know do not seem to consider it a problem. Look at the officiating argument. It is reasonable to infer that the NFL is concerned about officiating. Mike Periera is on the NFL Network explaining the rules of the game. The NFL is looking into the NASCAR replay system.

Certainly, it is very good that it will be easier to keep vets on rosters, I don't think fans have a problem with that at all. As for the "vet min now equals the min salary for a 3rd-year, not a 4th year player", I am not sure how this makes your point at all. Shouldn't a vet have a larger min salary than a 3-4th year player???

I should have been clearer

All salaries for players with four or more years of experience AND who sign contracts that qualify for veteran's exemption will only count $425,000 (the minimum salary for a player with 2 credited season) against teams' salary caps. In 2005 the veteran exemption was equal to the minimum salary of a player with 3 credited seasons. The difference this year amounts to $75,000.
<P>

Did I mention anything about cap space being a problem?? I don't think I did, whether with the Pats OR any other team.

You did not mention how the rookie pay scheme is a problem for NFL teams nor how it affects the quality of play. In other words, you seem to be saying that rookie pay scheme is a problem without explaining why it is a problem for the NFL.

I'm not sure many, if any rookies can be the best in their position, this year.
I'm wondering how many of those rookies will be paid a lot of money and not play up to that value....in other words busts. Which do you think would be greater?? The rookies who play in the top group of players in a position OR
players paid more than they are worth and not living up to that?? I really am not sure which is greater.

If you are going by just this year, then I agree that few, if any, will be considered the best at their position. If you are going by the length of the contract, then I will think that there will be several players.

My question on jerseys is, do you wish to base a salary on that itself?? Are you saying hype and visibility is what should drive a players salary and not on the field play??

No, I am saying if the NFL is financially benefiting from a Reggie Bush coming into this league, why should not Reggie Bush??

Can you name one non-sports "union" where those entering into it get paid more than those who have been in the union for years??

Can you name one non-sports "union" where the average career of a person entering the union is as short as the NFL??

I think most NFL fans would be much happier with the salary pie being split differently, with less of a slice given to rookies and more to vets who have proven themselves and are the backbone of the league.

The 32 teams can spend $3,284,461,170 on their 2006 cap figures. The total rookie pool amount is $133,382,411 or just over 4% of the total 2006 cap amount. In other words, veterans are getting 96% of the salary cap pie. If 4% is too much, what percent is right?? And how would you get the NFLPA to agree to the deal???

If NFL.Com had a poll asking what was the biggest problem in the NFL, IMO, the officiating would be the runaway winner.

 

[Miguel]

I should have been clearer

All salaries for players with four or more years of experience AND who sign contracts that qualify for veteran's exemption will only count $425,000 (the minimum salary for a player with 2 credited season) against teams' salary caps. In 2005 the veteran exemption was equal to the minimum salary of a player with 3 credited seasons. The difference this year amounts to $75,000.

Minimum Salary Levels
Rookie- $275,000

1 Credited Season- $350,000
2 Credited Seasons-$425,000
3 Credited Seasons- $500,000
4 to 6 Credited Seasons- $585,000 *
7 to 9 Credited Seasons- $710,000 *
10+ Credited Seasons- $810,000 *

 

[Miguel]

The 32 teams can spend $3,284,461,170 on their 2006 cap figures. The total rookie pool amount is $133,382,411 or just over 4% of the total 2006 cap amount. In other words, veterans are getting 96% of the salary cap pie.

I just realize that my rookie pool numbers are misleading.
It presumes that all 255 draft picks either make the 53-man roster or if placed on IR do not have a split contract. It also presumes that no UDFAs will make any NFL team. Neither case is likely to be true. Let's say that in the end 320 rookies make the 53-man roster. At worst, the rookies will be taking up about 4.6% of the total cap.

 

[mgteich]

I guess the complaint is that rookies get paid too much?

This is curious to me, since I have have always thought that rookies were bargains. It is through production of the low-paid rookies that teams have be able to keep under the salary caps. How often have you heard that good players make their money after fulfilling the rookie contract?

Perhaps the top 10 are "overpaid" whatever that means. Do you all really believe that the patriots are cutting valuable veterans to sign the rookies? That is utter nonesense! I suspect that all but the first two picks will actually lower the cap and make more available to others.

Maroney's cap number will be between $1M and $1.5M (Mankins is $1.2M). Thus he will be paid less than the average player on the patriots, and less than the average of those players not named Brady. How does this hurt the veterans? Should Heath Evans make more than Maroney? Should Mankins get less than Hochstein?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as always. Personally, I believe that free agency and the veteran reductions in cap (except for the useless RFA designation) has helped the NFL and most of all, it has helped the VETERANS.
The reason the union and the players vote for these deals is that the deals benefits their clients, the veterans. The rookies are NOT treated as well, although there were some improvements this year.

---------------

I guess I don't understand. What does it mean when you guys indicate that it doesn't matter how the deals affect the NFL and the players. After all, it is not only them that matter. Huh? The Agreement is between the players (veterans, and rookies and their representation) and the owners and their representation. If the fans don't like how much Tebucky Jones or Maroney make, why should it matter?
------------------------

The NFL is by far the best run of the leagues. The product is amazingly excellent year after year. I see little wrong other than the officiating, which doesn't seem as good as top conference college officating.

 

[Kdo5]

The refs can be terrible sometimes. This years playoffs was a horror show.

 

[Pats726]

Rookeis getting a larger sum of money than vets is basically unfair; more so woth the so-called "elite" high round players. What career has those starting in it NOT having to pay dues?? I think a lower scale for rookies, would result in less busts.
As to those in the know thinking it is all OK, that may be true, but sometimes those with the closest look sometimes are those that are in deniel or who lack perspective.
As for those who may be in their rookie contracts and in the top of a position playing wise, but NOT paying wise, there may be a few who are there in a few years. But does that number equal the number of busts who are way overpaid and are at the low end of the production scale?? What about those who have taken tons of money and have done little???
As for Reggie Bush, I didn't realize he was going to play football for nothing..did you???
As for non-sports unions, can you name one that on an average has rank and file members making over a million a year??

 

[Miguel]

Rookeis getting a larger sum of money than vets is basically unfair; more so woth the so-called "elite" high round players.

How many of the 255 draft picks does this apply to?? I think at best 10.

What career has those starting in it NOT having to pay dues??

Ask any good player who was not a Top 10 pick if his contract reflects his market value. That, IMO, is paying dues. David Givens was a BARGAIN for the Patriots. One can say the same for Branch, Seymour, Koppen, Samuel, Graham, Warren, etc.

I think a lower scale for rookies, would result in less busts.

Why??

As to those in the know thinking it is all OK, that may be true, but sometimes those with the closest look sometimes are those that are in deniel or who lack perspective.

Let's just say that I think that Bob Kraft, Jerry Jones, Gene Upshaw, Scott Pioli, etal know more about running a football team than I do. And if they do not think that is a problem, I will not, either. I have a hard time believing that veterans like a Tebucky Jones or a Troy Brown would have a hard time dealing with the fact that Maroney and Jackson are going to take more money than them this year. It is not an either/or (money either goes to rookies or to the vets). After signing their draft class, the Pats will have about $13 million in cap space to spend on the veterans. I'm willing to give you 100-1 odds ($1,000 to $10) that the Pats will NOT give all of the veterans a raise. They will give some veterans a raise (Seymour being the most likely candidate)

As for those who may be in their rookie contracts and in the top of a position playing wise, but NOT paying wise, there may be a few who are there in a few years. But does that number equal the number of busts who
are way overpaid and are at the low end of the production scale??

I think that the of underpaid players far exceeds the number of busts.

What about those who have taken tons of money and have done little???

Only few draft picks take tons of money. Why lower the income of a high percentage of the rookies because a few rookies are hugh cap busts??? That is also not fair.

As for Reggie Bush, I didn't realize he was going to play football for nothing..did you???

I am presuming that under your proposed rookie scale he would have made less than he would now.

Under your proposed rookie scale what would Reggie Bush make??

what would Maroney make???

what would have Brady made??
Givens??

Please give us an idea of how your fix for this problem would work. Please give us an idea of how you would get the NFLPA to agree to the deal.

As for non-sports unions, can you name one that on an average has rank and file members making over a million a year??

Let's agree to disagree on this. I happen to think that comparing NFLPA to other unions is comparing apples to oranges because of the uniqueness of the NFL (a fan of American football can only buy the product from the NFL - a car fan can buy a car from non-unionized company)

I do not feel that the NFLPA can be compared to another union. The NFLPA works with the NFL. Name another industry as successful as the NFL that has an union.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

In discussing the rookie compensation issue here the problem is you are discussing cap numbers and base salaries when the problem issue is bonus money and compensation overall, and basicallly for those players chosen in the first round or even the first half of the first round.

Owners aren't happy about the insane bonus money being levied there, and neither are some of the more intelligent players like Trent Green. It's gotten to the point where it's difficult for the small market team with the lousy record and the limited revenue stream to turn it around because their high first round draft pick every season, who may seldom see the field and never pan out relative to his draft hype, is taking up 20-25% of their actual payroll every year and that does impact their ability to reward or retain veteran players or acquire FA's to bolster the remainder of their roster. And the player they select is often one they are almost forced to deal with because of draft slotting. Sure they could trade out and down but the pressure is intense and sometimes they can't find takers for the overhyped talent at the very top of the draft.

Reggie Bush will likely boost ticket sales in NO enough to cover his acquisition cost this season. But that's the exception and not the rule. Alex Smith certainly didn't generate that kind of buzz. Bush will also garner significant anscillary compensation from sponsors which should sufficiently reward him for his boost in anscillary boosting of jersey sales. And he may even live up to his hype and earn his multi millions, although that is becoming almost more the exception than the rule.

I believe what Trent Green has been calling for is a cap on rookie draft signing bonus money. Not to benefit ownership but to benefit those players who are outperforming existing contracts be they youngsters on late round or UDFA deals or journeymen players. He wants to see the year end performance compensation pool increased and expanded to include all players including the aging veterans hanging on on the minimum deals who are playing more snaps and performing at a higher level than some kids riding the pine who have just banked millions because of where they were drafted.

The NFLPA opposes that kind of thinking and would like to strangle guys like Green who choose to speak out. They run this bizarre union with no input from rank and file, and their mantra has been trickle down economics - let the rookie deals drive the market. And to some extent it has, but the beneficiaries are the also small percentage of top tier players who ever get signed to big ticket multi year deals. The average starters salary regardless of position will be around $1.5M this season, and the mean will be substantially less this season. That's where Green wants to see more of the payroll focused so that guys who play well enough to start or find themselves playing substantial snaps in this league are compensated fairly relative to the long term damage they will likely live with when they are either cut loose or are forced to walk (or hobble) away in their late 20's or early 30's having never bagged one of those insane deals.

It's kind of like what we try to do here in NE, only on a broader scale. Quit overpaying the hype and use the money saved to reward the workhorses.

 

[Trot]

This is not directly related to some of the other issues being raised, but for me, the single worst part of the NFL today is the unbelievable amount of advertising (read commercial breaks and network promos) that infest network broadcasts. I remember in the SB vs. Carolina, just befor AV's kick, CBS broke to commercial, came back, and just before the kick, rather than analysing the situation, or panning through the crowd, or simply letting us hear/watch the excitement on the fiels, they went into some damn promo for "Survivor," and just killed the tension and "live" feel. that is just one representative example of the seven billion commercial breaks per game which destroy the game's flow. IMO this sponsorship of everything from the opening kickoff to the endzone cam makes a mockery of the competitive ebb and flow of the game. And it keeps getting worse, year after year: a guy gets fed up with all the f'ing stoppages and promos.

I also think that the phenomenon of having games on MOn, Thu, Sat etc. will lead to a similar saturation effect: what happened to sunday afternoons and football? The more extra weekday games the NFL schedules, the less sacred Sun at 1 becomes.

my 2 cents.

 

[AllabouttheVinces]

First, some perspective. Let's agree that the NFL is the best run professional sports league. I don't think it's even close. Owners work with one another, unlike the greedy baseball owners. The NFL was the first league to have replay. There hasn't been a strike since the '80's. Though we all complain about the officiating, if you want to see bad officiating, watch the NBA, where charge calls are a joke, or MLB, where every ump has a different strike zone. In the NFL officials confer, to make sure they get the calls right.

OTOH, several posters here have made good points. Technology is available, and should be used. The matter of full-time officials for the NFL is a no-brainer, and with all the money in the NFL, isn't it really an embarrassment that officials are part-time employees?

My vote for the #1 problem goes to an issue that I have no solution for, though I think it could be studied. The #1 problem in the NFL is injuries. Football is a violent game played by big, incredibly fast people. I don't think it's enough to say "it's part of the game". Ted Johnson retired due to concussions. Every year players go down early in the season and are gone for the year. Will Rodney, Light and Koppen be back at 100% this year? Every year, it's an epidemic.

 

[Pats726]

Let's agree to disagree on this. I happen to think that comparing NFLPA to other unions is comparing apples to oranges because of the uniqueness of the NFL (a fan of American football can only buy the product from the NFL - a car fan can buy a car from non-unionized company)

I do not feel that the NFLPA can be compared to another union. The NFLPA works with the NFL. Name another industry as successful as the NFL that has an union.

I agree...and I have think it applies to more the top round or two than the rest...so in reality..it's more of a flattening of scale as opposed to reduction. And UDFAs do get paid quite less...so the scale might be less top round..more money to the UDFAs and..there may even be an increase in total percentage..but IMO fairer.
Not doubt comparing the NFLPA with other non-sports unions are totally different...One friend of mine..claims that the sport-unions are hardly unions
in anything but the name and that they are more like guilds, but I don't know the true difference in detail.
You know more about the financial aspect than many and I respect you completely, but I disagree..maybe less now that I have looked at the details and other things on other similar threads.
As for the number of players underpaid as to those over paid..you may be correct...if you look at the total rookie picture, really, ONLY the first two round picks could be considered over paid in any way, maybe even less. SO the possible "busts" come from a smaller group..while possible players that are underpaid could come from more rounds..and thus a larger pool.
As was mentioned, Bob Kraft tried before to put a rookie cap on things and it did not get anywhere..(I don't know details of this..would like tio know what he proposed and what the arguments were against...) but just to note that some have seen it as a problem. Also, the use of incentives for those who play above the contract might be in place as well.
What is interesting is that there is a lot of discussion about this issue.

 

[Mike the Brit]

Performance-enhancing drugs are the biggest problem

From Profootballtalk:

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

PLAYERS WON'T QUIT USING HGH
In response to reports that the NFL Players Association is opposed to blood testing for Human Growth Hormone, which currently can't be detected via urinalysis, a league source tells us that many NFL players are currently using HGH, have been using HGH since the early 1990s, and will continue to use HGH until there's a system in place for catching them.
And there might not be a system for a while.
NFLPA Executive Director Gene Upshaw told the Washington Post that he "and other league leaders" doubt the reliability of blood testing for HGH. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello confirmed the league's concern in this regard: "We have no current plans to implement blood testing, and we have concerns about the reliability of the blood test that currently exists."

... and the least recognized one.​

 

[Pats726]

Very interesting...HGH is a problem..although I don't know how widespread it is. Solution??? I would save urine samples of all players..and keep them in storage, so that when a urine test for HGH is found, they will go back and retest for it. THAT simple...if they use it, they may have the consequence at some point of it being known. The problem is that there are many ways around things..and as fast as a urine test will be developed, other drugs and things will be found that will not be detectable. But I think that may put a scare into current players enough so it may not be used.
I also wonder about how long HGH stay in the system for testing purposes. It may be washed through the system quick. Tom Curran had an interesting article about this last year.
I agree it is a problem...although I really don't know how widespread it is in the NFL.

 

[spacecrime]

Only few draft picks take tons of money. Why lower the income of a high percentage of the rookies because a few rookies are hugh cap busts??? That is also not fair.

Very good point. I agree totally that rookie salaries should not be cut across the board. If salaries of the top ten are made more reasonable (whatever that is) then the salaries of the lower tier could be increased with no overall cost to anyone, except ten or twelve players.

Multi-million dollar upfront money give-aways to the next Ryan Leaf is a shame, when there are so many players in rounds 5-7 who deserve more $$$.

 

[Pats726]

Very good point. I agree totally that rookie salaries should not be cut across the board. If salaries of the top ten are made more reasonable (whatever that is) then the salaries of the lower tier could be increased with no overall cost to anyone, except ten or twelve players.

Multi-million dollar upfront money give-aways to the next Ryan Leaf is a shame, when there are so many players in rounds 5-7 who deserve more $$$.

SC..I agree totally...I thiink I have modified my thoughts on this so that it's really the top tired rookies that I feel need cuts in their iniital pay..with more to the UDFAs and lower round players.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

I have always thought that the first round rookies should make somewhat more than second round picks, just enough to keep them from wanting to play in Canada. I think that bad teams with top picks each year are getting further and further in the hole by signing giant deals with unproven players.
Why not make rookies start at the bottom? Reggie Bush would never make $200,000 a year at his first regular job out of college, even if he was the best student in the country. It doesn't work that way in the real world.
To me, the rookies should be slotted automatically into an exact salary range, with a choice of 3-5 year deals as the biggest negotiating factor. You would never need a 'superagent' like Tom Condon, who stuck the 49ers with the Alex Smith deal (provided Smith is the bust he seems to be).
Your big paycheck would be your second contract, the one you have earned based on true ability and production, not combine numbers.

Also, I think the officials need to be full time, young and not influenced by the sham 'competition comittee'. And there is no excuse for not having cameras all over the field and the use of modern technology in spotting the ball, goal line, ect. People need to get fired after a certain amount of bad calls, as well.

 

[BelichickFan]

I agree that pass interference spot fouls are awful plus rookie salaries are a joke.

 

[Brady-To-Branch]

I agree with the commemts on rules cum officiating. Given technology there shold be NO question of offsides, ball placement, out of bounds and whether someone crossed the goal line. With the revenue from TV and ticket prices the NFL could saturate stadia with dozens of inexpensive digital video cameras and laser detectors. 'Print' a wireless transponder on the footballs noses.

Put me in the camp requesting a milder PI penalty. The current rules are too arbitrary and too easily game changing upon the whim of an official.
Holding, I have no solution for except maybe requiring a 'hold' to be more blatant. But I don't know how to specify that.

Just to add...

I believe the root problem of NFL officiating begins and ends with the NFL Rules Committee. Since 3 of its members: Mike Martz, Tony Dungy, and Bill Polian, started whining, publicly, about "no-calls", the NFL office acquiesced and told its zebras to call tighter games, which lead to the following...

Point-of-emphasis (Illegal Contact - even if it's away from the ball)

Bogus Roughing the Passer calls (regardless of whether or not the pass rusher can see if the QB has completed his throwing motion. I've seen plenty of these calls in the 2005 season.) Now that Marv Lewis is has recently joined the committee, there's now a rule that prevents low hits on the QB. Talk about reactionary! Now, you can't hit QBs high and you can't hit them low. From now on, after every QB sack, I'm looking for the flag. Why doesn't the NFL become a 7-on-7 league and cut the pretense.

Greater amount of phantom/ticky-tack Pass Interference calls that can significantly alter the game. (every time there's good/tight coverage on a deep pass that falls incomplete, I have to wait for the flag)

With the NFL breathing down the necks of the officials, there is pressure not to let anything go. Thanks to the NFL Rules Committee, the days of refs "letting 'em play" are over. Now, as evidenced by the putrid officiating in the 2005 playoffs, the monster they created is home to roost.