PDA

View Full Version : An End to the NFL Draft??


CloakNNNdagger
04-05-2011, 10:59 PM
That's what NFLPA outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler is strongly advocating.

Watch the entire interview with Daniel Kaplan of the Sports Business Journal at the end of the article.

LINK (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/05/pondering-a-future-without-the-nfl-draft/)

The Pencil Neck
04-05-2011, 11:07 PM
That's what NFLPA outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler is strongly advocating.

Watch the entire interview with Daniel Kaplan of the Sports Business Journal at the end of the article.

LINK

You didn't include the link.

Hookem Horns
04-06-2011, 12:21 AM
So the NFL will wind up being like FIFA. A few rich clubs who sign ever good player and the rest will be teams will be warm ups until you play one of the rich clubs.

This works great in Spain. Every season we have the excitement of guessing who will win La Liga, Real Madrid or Barcelona.

Dan B.
04-06-2011, 12:27 AM
So the NFL will wind up being like FIFA. A few rich clubs who sign ever good player and the rest will be teams will be warm ups until you play one of the rich clubs.

This works great in Spain. Every season we have the excitement of guessing who will win La Liga, Real Madrid or Barcelona.

There'd still be a salary cap

Hagar
04-06-2011, 12:40 AM
So the NFL will wind up being like FIFA. A few rich clubs who sign ever good player and the rest will be teams will be warm ups until you play one of the rich clubs.

This works great in Spain. Every season we have the excitement of guessing who will win La Liga, Real Madrid or Barcelona.One part of me wants the players to win the anti-trust lawsuit(s). I think it would be funny to watch the players get what they want and then realize what they want stinks.

In this kind of scenerio, a few players on a few teams would get huge dollars and the rest would get crap. Think about how much would you pay Jacoby Jones if there wasn't a league minimum? Wages for special teamers and marginal players would get beat down while everybody would pay through the nose for a Tom Brady of Payton Manning. If you think their salary is big now, just wait.

Small market teams would crumble. Teams like Buffalo would have to move to larger cities with a more vibrant economy so they could charge more for tickets to pay for the one or two big players that every team needs to compete.

CloakNNNdagger
04-06-2011, 07:40 AM
Sorry! My Bad!

Here's the LINK (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/05/pondering-a-future-without-the-nfl-draft/)

stingray
04-06-2011, 07:49 AM
So the NFL will wind up being like FIFA. A few rich clubs who sign ever good player and the rest will be teams will be warm ups until you play one of the rich clubs.

This works great in Spain. Every season we have the excitement of guessing who will win La Liga, Real Madrid or Barcelona.

Don't people in the European Leagues get bored of this?

IDEXAN
04-06-2011, 07:55 AM
After the judge listens to the arguments today, I'm hearing she may take up to 2 weeks to rule at which time the side that's on the losing side of her decision will appeal, and it'll take the appelate process 4 to 6 weeks to come up with a ruling which puts us into the June/July time period.
In other words, sounds to me like nuttin is gonna happen anytime soon ?

ArlingtonTexan
04-06-2011, 08:36 AM
There'd still be a salary cap

Actually there would not be a salary cap (nor floor, which is more important for the rank and file player) nor roster limits amoung other items which are collectively bargained that otherwise are very illegal in a kinda capitalistic system.

Dan B.
04-06-2011, 11:51 AM
Actually there would not be a salary cap (nor floor, which is more important for the rank and file player) nor roster limits amoung other items which are collectively bargained that otherwise are very illegal in a kinda capitalistic system.

There's a payroll cap at my work. Managers are told to keep their labor percentage at a certain percentage of profit, or they don't get to manage very long. Isn't that a salary cap?

infantrycak
04-06-2011, 12:01 PM
There's a payroll cap at my work. Managers are told to keep their labor percentage at a certain percentage of profit, or they don't get to manage very long. Isn't that a salary cap?

That's a self-imposed policy which points to the main point. If there is no CBA then each team can decide what it wants to spend, no floor and no ceiling uniform across the league.

Ole Miss Texan
04-06-2011, 12:02 PM
There's a payroll cap at my work. Managers are told to keep their labor percentage at a certain percentage of profit, or they don't get to manage very long. Isn't that a salary cap?

Sounds more like a team mandated salary cap than league-wide... each owner deciding how much he wants to spend. That would be similar to major league baseball.

That's a self-imposed policy which points to the main point. If there is no CBA then each team can decide what it wants to spend, no floor and no ceiling uniform across the league.
beat me to it!

Dan B.
04-06-2011, 12:19 PM
Sounds more like a team mandated salary cap than league-wide... each owner deciding how much he wants to spend. That would be similar to major league baseball.


beat me to it!

They are a corporation. It isn't determined at the store level. It's dictated from HQ in California.

infantrycak
04-06-2011, 12:23 PM
They are a corporation. It isn't determined at the store level. It's dictated from HQ in California.

Each team is a separate corporation. The league has no authority to tell them what to spend.

Dan B.
04-06-2011, 12:28 PM
Each team is a separate corporation. The league has no authority to tell them what to spend.

But they can agree not to. That's what they did right? They chose to join the NFL. They could be a team in the UFL, or start their own league. By joining the NFL, they agree to rules the NFL sets in place. On a smaller scale it's like choosing to live in a Homeowner's Association.

As far as a league without a draft I'm not sure it would be as crippling as some fear. I wouldn't mind a system like MLB's at all. I know that MLB has a draft, but it's far less important since they draft their players years before they develop them. I think you could see teams drafting young players and coaching them in a certain system, then going on to be very successful. Football seems more system based anyway, so it could be very effective. Think Twins or A's.

nero THE zero
04-06-2011, 12:34 PM
But they can agree not to. That's what they did right? They chose to join the NFL. They could be a team in the UFL, or start their own league. By joining the NFL, they agree to rules the NFL sets in place. On a smaller scale it's like choosing to live in a Homeowner's Association.

The point is that there would be an absence of that rule set by the league.

In your analogy, your CA HQ is "the NFL" and each individual store, whose salary caps in dictated, are individual NFL franchises.

Dan B.
04-06-2011, 12:35 PM
The point is that there would be an absence of that rule set by the league.

In your analogy, your CA HQ is "the NFL" and each individual store, whose salary caps in dictated, are individual NFL franchises.

Sure, and my store can leave that HQ and franchise with someone different.

ArlingtonTexan
04-06-2011, 12:35 PM
There's a payroll cap at my work. Managers are told to keep their labor percentage at a certain percentage of profit, or they don't get to manage very long. Isn't that a salary cap?

This would work if the NFL is considered a single business entity, which the league argues when it is to its advantage. The reality is that the NFL is 32 separate businesses (Supreme court 9-0) with a close working relationship. One is which, either by agreement with its major employees (the players) or government allowance (baseball has an anti-trust exemption and the NFL has lost anti-trust cases) can operate as though it were one at certain times:

Therefore, the Court ruled that Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act applies to the NFL, and ruled that any unilateral decision made by the NFL that affect all the teams shall be viewed under the so-called “Rule of Reason” for antitrust purposes. Under the “Rule of Reason,” a lower court has to examine all of the circumstances to determine whether and to what degree the action is anticompetitive. WSJ link below


For light bedtime reading:

The American Needle Case (relates to whether the NFL is one business or thirty-two)

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-661.pdf

A little more straight forward

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/05/24/american-needle-high-court-delivers-9-0-shutout-against-nfl/

infantrycak
04-06-2011, 12:38 PM
But they can agree not to. That's what they did right? They chose to join the NFL. They could be a team in the UFL, or start their own league. By joining the NFL, they agree to rules the NFL sets in place. On a smaller scale it's like choosing to live in a Homeowner's Association.

The CBA between the players and the league is what set the cap rules. It no longer exists. There is no agreement between the teams and league for the league to set a floor or cap for each team. In fact the case the players have filed is that any agreement like that would be illegal.

The league itself makes basically no decisions about the management of the teams. The owners vote by super-majority for what happens.

Dan B.
04-06-2011, 12:51 PM
NM I finally figured it out. Just needed a little lunch in me I guess. Thanks guys for setting me straight.

Dan B.
04-06-2011, 12:55 PM
This would work if the NFL is considered a single business entity, which the league argues when it is to its advantage. The reality is that the NFL is 32 separate businesses (Supreme court 9-0) with a close working relationship. One is which, either by agreement with its major employees (the players) or government allowance (baseball has an anti-trust exemption and the NFL has lost anti-trust cases) can operate as though it were one at certain times:

Therefore, the Court ruled that Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act applies to the NFL, and ruled that any unilateral decision made by the NFL that affect all the teams shall be viewed under the so-called “Rule of Reason” for antitrust purposes. Under the “Rule of Reason,” a lower court has to examine all of the circumstances to determine whether and to what degree the action is anticompetitive. WSJ link below


For light bedtime reading:

The American Needle Case (relates to whether the NFL is one business or thirty-two)

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-661.pdf

A little more straight forward

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/05/24/american-needle-high-court-delivers-9-0-shutout-against-nfl/

I think it is different. Even though every franchise in my company has a payroll cap, the cap varies by store based on volume and revenue.

I've never been a fan of the salary cap in general. I think it does almost nothing to help competitive balance. The NFL and NBA were both more competitive before they instituted a cap, and MLB is more competitive than either of those sports. Factors like revenue sharing, expansion -- and yes, the draft -- do far more to help or hurt balance in a league.

ArlingtonTexan
04-06-2011, 06:31 PM
I think it is different. Even though every franchise in my company has a payroll cap, the cap varies by store based on volume and revenue.I've never been a fan of the salary cap in general. I think it does almost nothing to help competitive balance. The NFL and NBA were both more competitive before they instituted a cap, and MLB is more competitive than either of those sports. Factors like revenue sharing, expansion -- and yes, the draft -- do far more to help or hurt balance in a league.

Good. This is an important distinction.

CloakNNNdagger
04-21-2011, 09:26 AM
The antitrust suit could have some very widespread implications of football as we presently know it. IMHO, although it may correct some ills in the system, this could open things up to widespread tampering and overall chaos.

Goodell fears an NFL without a draft, free agency rules (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/21/goodell-fears-an-nfl-without-a-draft-free-agency-rules/)
We’ve mentioned a time or two (or more) the potential end result of the current antitrust Tom Brady litigation filed by the players against the NFL.

Under lawyer Jeffrey Kessler’s view of reality, a non-union NFL should have no rules of any kind among the 32 teams. That means no salary cap, no restrictions on free agency, no franchise tags, and no draft.

Kessler shrugs at the potential consequences, believing that a truly open market for player services would be good for everyone.

Commissioner Roger Goodell disagrees. In a Wednesday conference call with Giants season-ticket holders, Goodell addressed the issue directly.

“That’s something that’s troubling to me a little bit because in the [April 6] hearing, some of the lawyers for the players association talk about their vision of what would happen with the NFL and the types of things they would be challenging in court – everything from the draft to free agency rules,” Goodell said. “I think it would have a tremendously negative impact on the game of football and what everybody loves the game of football for and what has made us successful.

“I get concerned when I hear how the lawyers want to approach this and how they want to change the game for the players association,” Goodell added. “I think we have a great game that’s competitive. I think that the balance we have amongst teams is all part of our system. Aspects of those systems are always modified and changed and I’m willing to engage in that. But I think eliminating some of those aspects that I think have made our game — and frankly other sports, they are all part of other sports. The NFL has got an incredibly competitive and attractive game. We’ve got to make sure that we continue to make modifications. We’ve got to make it stronger, not weaken it.”

He’s right. The presence of a salary cap and the placement of restrictions on free agency and the use of a draft not only help ensure competitive balance among the teams, but they ensure that money will be available for the kind of “mid tier” players who reportedly are hoping to intervene in the Tom Brady antitrust litigation.

Without a franchise tag, Peyton Manning could squeeze the Colts into paying him $40 million or more per year. With or without a salary cap, that’s less money that would be available for the other guys on the team not named Peyton Manning.

With no union to negotiate minimum salaries or a mandatory per-team spending floor, non-superstars could end up making much less than they do now. The market for long snappers, for example, would be a lot lower than the mandatory minimums that the union had negotiated for all players based on years of experience.

With no draft, young superstars would bypass college (or leave after one or two years) and flock to the league, chewing up even more of the money — and nudging mid-level veterans out of jobs.

In the end, and as we’ve previously said, five percent of the players would be making 95 percent of the money. And the other 95 percent of the league’s players would have to choose between fighting for the scraps in order to play the game they love or finding real jobs.

That’s why it makes sense for other players, and perhaps other lawyers, to get involved. If Kessler gets his way, the NFL could be changed dramatically and permanently for the worse.

Of course, there’s a chance that no rules would have no ultimate impact on competitiveness, given that the concept of “team” takes on significant importance when there are 11 moving parts on the field per side (or more, if Brad Childress gets another head-coaching job). But it will affect the manner in which players are paid, and the majority of the 1,900 men who play in the NFL need protection against being paid less, not the unlimited ability to be paid more.

Given some of the names attached to the Tom Brady antitrust lawsuit, it’s safe to say that the interests of the majority of the 1,900 men who play in the NFL aren’t truly being protected and/or advanced.

disaacks3
04-21-2011, 09:41 AM
“That’s something that’s troubling to me a little bit because in the [April 6] hearing, some of the lawyers for the players association talk about their vision of what would happen with the NFL and the types of things they would be challenging in court – everything from the draft to free agency rules,” Goodell said. “I think it would have a tremendously negative impact on the game of football and what everybody loves the game of football for and what has made us successful.

That's great Roger, now give the Owners you represent a swift kick in the *** and remind them that if they don't get a deal done, this is the potential consequence.

Double Barrel
04-21-2011, 10:24 AM
Goodell fears an NFL without a draft, free agency rules

This strikes me as fear-mongering worst case scenario stuff.

Without a franchise tag, Peyton Manning could squeeze the Colts into paying him $40 million or more per year. With or without a salary cap, that’s less money that would be available for the other guys on the team not named Peyton Manning.

Manning could squeeze the Colts to pay him $40 million, but it takes two to tango. They are not forced to pay him this, and some other team could pay it and he'd have to live with the competitive disadvantage that his greed places on the team.

With no draft, young superstars would bypass college (or leave after one or two years) and flock to the league, chewing up even more of the money — and nudging mid-level veterans out of jobs.

This might be a good thing to shake up the stranglehold that college ADs have on the NCAA with regards to a playoff system.

Of course, there’s a chance that no rules would have no ultimate impact on competitiveness, given that the concept of “team” takes on significant importance when there are 11 moving parts on the field per side.

ahhhh, an admission that this could be much about nothing...

Hervoyel
04-21-2011, 10:56 AM
That's interesting and I confess I hadn't really considered that the players themselves are divided into haves and have-nots. I mean, I knew it but I didn't take it into account when thinking about this fight. I think that was nicely put when the writer said "the majority of the 1,900 men who play in the NFL need protection against being paid less, not the unlimited ability to be paid more" Thats a real concern for the majority of them.

On the other hand Goodell needs to understand that adding two more real games to every teams starters season isn't good for football either. Playing games overseas and talking about expanding to London or Tokyo isn't good either (much less Mexico City or Toronto). The NFL is right in pointing out that this particular bunch of greedy bastards (the highest paid players) are going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg if they aren't careful. The league however ignores the fact that they're doing the same thing.

At this point it's almost a foregone conclusion that the goose is going to die. It's just a question of which group of greedy bastards do it first. So much weasel-speak in there. Goodell is saying the game is competitive and attractive but in the same sentence he's talking about how they have to keep making modifications to it. Why? It's incredibly successful right now. Of course do everything you can to make it safer but the league wants to change the game in ways that will be just as damaging I believe as what the players are proposing. a couple of decades down the road they might all be wishing for the good old days back when they had a draft and a salary cap and 16 games on the schedule.

Why can't they look at the NBA and MLB and understand that yes, you can break these things.

El Tejano
04-21-2011, 11:49 AM
There are two people that are going to end the NFL Draft. Adam Schefter of ESPN and Jason Lacanfora. They ruin the whole experience with trying to be the first to announce who is being drafted by what team. They sit by the team thats's drafting next and then run to their station to say who it is going to be. No suspense, no anticipation. Just a bunch of fans going "KAREEM JACKSON?" And then the station goes on about the pick and they forget to show any highlights.

CloakNNNdagger
04-22-2011, 10:41 PM
As lengthy as this piece is, I think it is worth reading in total. It is the best and most concise summary of the potential changes to the game we know so well, due to the anticipated legal challenges to the draft and free agency and salary caps being pushed by player attornies.

Many players apparently don’t realize that Kessler is attacking the draft (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/22/many-players-apparently-dont-realize-that-kessler-is-attacking-the-draft/)

[Interestingly, this little tidbit is found within this piece:]

Via rookie linebacker Von Miller, the incoming rookies are attacking any restrictions or rules regarding the money paid to the 2011 draft picks. By next year, if the lawsuit is still pending (and it very well could be), we fully expect the players to add a member of the 2011 draft class, who’ll claim that the draft violates the antitrust laws, too.

TD
04-23-2011, 09:07 AM
Manning could squeeze the Colts to pay him $40 million, but it takes two to tango. They are not forced to pay him this, and some other team could pay it and he'd have to live with the competitive disadvantage that his greed places on the team.

Depends on the team. With no salary cap, some teams will be able to spend more on a couple of players than others can spend on their whole team.

This strikes me as fear-mongering worst case scenario stuff.

I'm sure it is.