Jeff-Pash-reacts-to-DeMaurice-Smiths-criticism-of-NFLs-last-offer

[RashanGary]

My proposal does this:

Lowers the minimum cap (so the smallest teams can sit on theri cash if they like)
Keeps a relatively similar tax threshold
Has teirs of tax penalty for teams who go above

If your caps are 100m minimum, 150 tax threshold and a sliding scale from there that makes it very hard to spend drastically more than the other teams. Here's an example of what I think 32 teams would probably look like


4 teams between 100 and 110M
6 teams between 110 and 120M
8 teams between 120M and 140M
8 teams between 140M and 150M (pack would be here, spending just less than the top teams, but still could break the threshold if they thought they were on teh cusp)
4 teams between 150M and 160M
2 teams between 160M and 180M

Obviously this is just a starting point, the % and numbers will change, but this is the concept. Teams who want to skimp can skimp (but only to a degree). Teams who want to do everything in their power to win, will be able to because nobody is spending drastically more than anyone else. And teh teams with the most money can spend it, keeping the most popular teams a little more relevant.

Over the long run, I think this plan brings parity and a slight advantage to the largest markets. I think that grows the pie larger because it keeps the most fans interested more of the time, while still keeping the lower teams relevant.

As far as the players concerns, when they get more money, it's really coming at expense of the richest teams. Make those rich teams feel like their getting something for their money rather than sharing so much and the motivation to pay more goes up too.

[RashanGary]

Baseball richest team spends 1000% more than poorest team.
My proposal the richest team spends 80% more than the poorest team.

Except for the owners who really want to skimp, everyone is in teh same spending range. If football is a 10 out of 10 in sharing money and baseball is a 1 out of 10, my proposal would be about a 3 out of 10. Essentially, the rich have a slight advantage, the poor a slight disadvantage, but everyone is competitive and more fans are interested more of the time so the total pie grows, providing more money for everyone.

[Guiness]

Isn't going to litigation a way for the players and their reps to get the OWNERS against themselves?

I truly do not give a rat's azz about either side - I only care about what will help the only team in the NFL that I give a damn about stay competitive in the future and bring home more Lombardi trophies.

That's a different take, Pugger. Nice to see some different conjecture.

It's no secret that Jerry Jones and some of the other owners of rich franchises begrudge the revenue sharing. Put the owners in a room, and they'll tear each other to pieces. If the CBA was thrown out in its entirety, its possible the owners would not come to another similar agreement, and the NFL could end up with a MLB-like system. Certainly in that situation, some players would stand to make a lot more.

Here's another thought on the hidden agenda bandwagon. What about guaranteed contracts? The NFL is unlike other pro-sports leagues in that they don't guarantee contracts. That is certainly something that would be desirable to the players.

[Patler]

Here's another thought on the hidden agenda bandwagon. What about guaranteed contracts? The NFL is unlike other pro-sports leagues in that they don't guarantee contracts. That is certainly something that would be desirable to the players.

I'm not sure how much of an issue that really is for the union. It would not change how much is spent on the players, it would just alter who gets the money that is spent. Presumably, in the current situation, money saved on a terminated contract that is not guaranteed ends up being spent on signing another player.

That said, the owners last proposal did offer some significant compensation for players the year after they are cut. Sort of a transition payment back to the real world.

[SkinBasket]

Baseball richest team spends 1000% more than poorest team.
My proposal the richest team spends 80% more than the poorest team.

Except for the owners who really want to skimp, everyone is in teh same spending range. If football is a 10 out of 10 in sharing money and baseball is a 1 out of 10, my proposal would be about a 3 out of 10. Essentially, the rich have a slight advantage, the poor a slight disadvantage, but everyone is competitive and more fans are interested more of the time so the total pie grows, providing more money for everyone.

You make a lot of assumptions with your model that real life has proven to the contrary about spending and competition. See baseball. Again.

[Lurker64]

The salary cap should not be a "$x for you guys and $y for you other guys" (where x≠y) situation. It should be a hard cap that everybody is bound to.

Also, JH be careful. You're doing the thing that the players rejected strenuously with the league's final proposal. The league gave a program where the cap was just pegged as a dollar figure, rather than as a function of total revenue. It's management's assertion that the salary cap should just be a number that is bargained collectively, it should not be a function of the total dollar amount (since the league sees into a future where revenue is like $50b, and projecting forward the minimum salary would be like $3m). Labor, on the other hand, wants to set the cap as a percentage of total revenue so if the league grows so does the pie, no matter how big the league grows.

So if you agree with labor, you can't just "peg the cap"... they reject that on principle.

[RashanGary]

So if you agree with labor, you can't just "peg the cap"... they reject that on principle.

The cap # would be a percentage of the revenue and everything else based off that.


Essentially, I'm trying to give Jones and Snider the chance to spend a little more, but nothing over the top. I'd like to keep it closer to football than baseball, but I do think a slight edge to the most popular teams makes the NFL more profitable overall. More people watch when the cowboys are on. They have more money. Let them have a small edge. They deserve it and the NFLwould profit from it.

go away skinbasket, your opinion has been noted and is no longer needed.

[Lurker64]

I'm trying to give Jones and Snider the chance to spend a little more, but nothing over the top. I'd like to keep it closer to football than baseball, but I do think a slight edge to the most popular teams makes the NFL more profitable overall. More people watch when the cowboys are on. They have more money. Let them have a small edge. They deserve it and the NFLwould profit from it.

I disagree strenuously. People will watch the Cowboys when they're on, whether or not they're good. So if you want to increase profitability, you should give the edge to a team that wouldn't draw eyeballs and asses when they're not good, but will when they are. That way you have more total eyeballs and asses glued to your product. A better system would be to give nobody an edge, which is essentially the current system.

Remember, the NFL has built an extremely popular sport based on a framework of punishing the successful teams and propping up the weak ones. Propping up the successful teams and punishing the weak ones would undermine the NFL greatly.

The extent of "different teams are treated differently" that the owners will agree to is "limited revenue sharing." They'll never agree to let the Steelers have a higher cap than the Ravens, and they shouldn't.

[RashanGary]

The NFL has grown in large part because they have a good product that people love. The current system is part of it, but I'd like a league where a couple teams spend a little more money and everyone hates them.

The way those teams spend, they'd screw it up with a few more dollars anyway. Ted could beat Jerry Jones with 20% tied behind his back and it would feel that much sweeter.

I see your point too. It might be better the way it is. It might be better with a small financial tilt toward the teams with the large fan bases. Hard to say until it's done. My vision says the new way would be better. Yours says otherwise. I'll stand by my hunch, but I could be wrong too.

I know skinbasket doesn't understand what I'm saying, but I hope you can see it's a small difference, nothing like baseball. Just a little more rope for the idiot cowboys (and teams like them), that's it. The operative words are small(tile) and little(more rope). Don't mistake those for, "just like baseball"

Baseball is horrible, but that doesn't mean there aren't small things they have right, or at least in the right direction. Things aren't either all right or all wrong.

[Freak Out]

The NFL has grown in large part because they have a good product that people love. The current system is part of it, but I'd like a league where a couple teams spend a little more money and everyone hates them.

What? Well shit...lets just take the WWF model and modify it for the NFL.

[Freak Out]

[Lurker64]

'd like a league where a couple teams spend a little more money and everyone hates them.

There are plenty of reasons to hate teams that have nothing to do with those teams having an unfair advantage.

You hate the Cowboys because Troy Aikman is somehow on the top FOX announcing team, and is as biased an announcer as we've ever seen. Plus, Jerry Jones is essentially one of those fans who thinks he can do a better job than NFL GMs, except he's a billionaire so he actually bought a team and gets to play at GM.

You hate the Redskins because: You Read This Article about their owner.

You hate the Patriots because: In the eyes of the media, they can do absolutely no wrong. They're smarter than everybody else and even when the hoodie fucks up he's brilliant.

You hate the Raiders because: Their owner is an undead monstrosity:

You don't need to tilt the playing field to make teams hateable. When you add to the fact that everybody's going to hate their division rivals, the fact that the media and asshole billionaires make certain teams eminently hateable is enough.

[Bossman641]

Sorry JH but I completely disagree with your proposals. The reason the NFL is so popular is because it is exactly what the MLB is not. The few teams that have no chance in the NFL are stuck in that position because of poor front offices. The multiple teams that have no chance in the MLB are in that position because they don't have the financial resources to compete.

[Guiness]

Remember, the NFL has built an extremely popular sport based on a framework of punishing the successful teams and propping up the weak ones. Propping up the successful teams and punishing the weak ones would undermine the NFL greatly.

Some might disagree with that over the last decade. A top 5 draft pick, and the top overall in particular has been an albatross as often as not. Bloody sea bloody bird bloody Albatross (flavour)

[Guiness]

There are plenty of reasons to hate teams that have nothing to do with those teams having an unfair advantage.

You hate the Cowboys because Troy Aikman is somehow on the top FOX announcing team, and is as biased an announcer as we've ever seen. Plus, Jerry Jones is essentially one of those fans who thinks he can do a better job than NFL GMs, except he's a billionaire so he actually bought a team and gets to play at GM.

You hate the Redskins because: You Read This Article about their owner.

You hate the Patriots because: In the eyes of the media, they can do absolutely no wrong. They're smarter than everybody else and even when the hoodie fucks up he's brilliant.

You hate the Raiders because: Their owner is an undead monstrosity:

You don't need to tilt the playing field to make teams hateable. When you add to the fact that everybody's going to hate their division rivals, the fact that the media and asshole billionaires make certain teams eminently hateable is enough.

Damn that's a funny article about Snyder. But that's not really Davis, is it? Cripes, I recognize him from the Plants Vs Zombies game!