New CBA

[Texans86]

Since it is finally offseason for the Houston Texans, it is tie to get down to the business that is foottball. After the Super Bowl finishes and the players finish their hula dances, NFL owners and GMs (and some coaches) will get together to try once again to get a new collective bargaining agreement. I know it sounds boring, but if nothing happens this year, then there is no salary cap next year. This would be bad for football, as I would thank many of you would agree. The main controversy is over how much money each to shares in the NFL. Small market teams want the large market teams to share more money, so that they can get more money. They have a legitimate case, because teams like the Jaguars (it's offseason and they are out of the playoffs, don't hate them too much) do not have a large market base to work from in Jacksonville. However teams like Houston, Dallas and New England have extremely large market bases. This past season, a team like Houston (2-14) collectively made more than Jacksonville (12-4) simpoly because Houston is a bigger market than Jacksonville. The Jaguars annually have problems selling out games, and therefore people in Jacksonville don't watch the home games because of blackouts. The main problem that teams like Jacksonville bring up is that they may actually lose money in a season. If teams start losing money, the NFL might have a situation like baseball had a couple seasons ago when teams like the Minnesota Twins were almost cut out of the league. I don't think many people want to start losing teams. So after reading that I pose this question, should large market teams have to give a larger portion of their revenue to the NFL to share with smaller market teams? Or should the NFl allow economics to freely happen, where an equiliberium will be found after a certain amount of teams leave the league? Is it all about location, location, location and the business side of football, or allowing the players to play?
Also, another piece of the agreement that I would love to see but I know I will not be able to is something about rookie contracts. The first round contracts are outrageous for unknown potential. There are two choices here. 1) The NFL could set a mandatory payment, whereas in the first round, rookies recieved a certain amount of money, known by the NFL for each draft pick. For example, every year, the first pick recieved $35 million and a $5 million signing bonus, the second pick got $33 million and a $4 million bonus. This would help prevent holdouts in the various training camps and allow teams to play football and not hardball with player's agents. 2) The contracts are changed to be similar to Maurice Clarett's and Ricky Williams rookie contracts. If you are not familiar with them, they are production based contracts. A rookie in the first round may only make $5 million base salary, but it could escalate to $30 million if he produces on the field. The main benefit of this is it protects teams from players who do not perform on the field, such as Bennie Joppru and Kellen Winslow II. It also allows for better control of the salary cap in the long run and makes the NFL more competitive (leaguewide, any team could have a larger turnover each year, becuase teams that better control the cap can do better in FA). While I also think production based contracts would be nice for Free Agents as well, I think it should start with rookies. What are your thoughts (even if it will never happen)?

 

[Double Barrel]

They've got to get a new CBA in place this off-season. No salary cap is letting genie out of the bottle that could lead the NFL down another path of strikes and/or lockouts (never a good thing for any professional sport).

I think profit sharing has been a key to the success of the NFL. I remember a time when the same cities always had the powerhouse franchises, and other cities came out of the starting game struggling year after year. Now most cities have at least a glimmer of hope that they can have the team that captures lightning in a bottle for a season. We still see consistently dominant teams *cough*dynasties?*cough*, but it's due to good front office decisions these days more so that the past.

The rookie contracts are a little different, IMO. You have to let capitalism have some say in the process. I'm a little iffy on production/incentive based contracts, especially if they are the meat of a player's contract. There are decisions that can be made during a game that are better for the team, but an individual player might lose revenue because of the decision. I'm up in the air how realistic these contracts can be, simply because of the idea of putting personal stats over the team seems detrimental.

 

[tulexan]

They have to do something about the rookie contracts, but I'm not sure what to do. Rookies shouldn't be making more than a lot of the top players at their position.

 

[Texans86]

The rookie contracts are a little different, IMO. You have to let capitalism have some say in the process. I'm a little iffy on production/incentive based contracts, especially if they are the meat of a player's contract. There are decisions that can be made during a game that are better for the team, but an individual player might lose revenue because of the decision. I'm up in the air how realistic these contracts can be, simply because of the idea of putting personal stats over the team seems detrimental.

I'm just thinking that production based contracts will help alleviate the excesiveness of current rookie contracts. Can anyone honestly say that an unproven rookie deserves $50 million without having stepped on the field?

 

[Double Barrel]

I'm just thinking that production based contracts will help alleviate the excesiveness of current rookie contracts. Can anyone honestly say that an unproven rookie deserves $50 million without having stepped on the field?

You've definitely got a valid point, man. It's hard to justify some of the money thrown at unproven players. Some estimates have Vince Young's initial contract over $100 million. Unreal, IMO.

 

[stevo3883]

You've definitely got a valid point, man. It's hard to justify some of the money thrown at unproven players. Some estimates have Vince Young's initial contract over $100 million. Unreal, IMO.

what?

I think you're talking about someone who said his contract + endorsments could fetch $100million.

his contract will be 2-3 million more than Alex Smith's if he goes #1, and if he goes lower, it will drop a fwe million each spot.

 

[tulexan]

I don't think that it will be $100 million, but if he comes here it will definitely be more than a couple million more than Alex Smith.

 

[Texans86]

The rookie contracts are a little different, IMO. You have to let capitalism have some say in the process. I'm a little iffy on production/incentive based contracts, especially if they are the meat of a player's contract. There are decisions that can be made during a game that are better for the team, but an individual player might lose revenue because of the decision. I'm up in the air how realistic these contracts can be, simply because of the idea of putting personal stats over the team seems detrimental.

I forgot to mention in the first post that some of the incentives were like $500,000 to go to offseason training. It's not always on the field things to get the bonus. I was reading about the Ricky Williams rookie contract recently, and he had bonuses like that, where some were just gimme's and others he had to earn on the field. I think the best one was that he got like $3 million if he got 2300 yards in a season. The others were more reasonable, like 1000, 1500, 1700 and 2000 all had money attached to it.

 

[Texans86]

what?

I think you're talking about someone who said his contract + endorsments could fetch $100million.

his contract will be 2-3 million more than Alex Smith's if he goes #1, and if he goes lower, it will drop a fwe million each spot.

Endorsements can only be controlled to a certain extent by teams, so if Vince gets $30 million in endorsements, fine, but how many jobs can you name where you are given a $50 million contract before you start work?

 

[keyfro]

personally i think they should add a clauss to the CBA in regards to the salary cap...i think they should allow each team to pick one player who's salary does not go against the salary cap...just follow me with this one...this won't keep FA's from every changing teams...but it will allow teams to keep their main fan favorite player on the team...i just don't like the idea of say the packers being brett farve'less because his cap hit was too much for the team to bear...or the bucs without derrick brooks due to his cap hit...one player for each team that way the fans can keep their local hereos

 

[TexanAddict]

personally i think they should add a clauss to the CBA in regards to the salary cap...i think they should allow each team to pick one player who's salary does not go against the salary cap...just follow me with this one...this won't keep FA's from every changing teams...but it will allow teams to keep their main fan favorite player on the team...i just don't like the idea of say the packers being brett farve'less because his cap hit was too much for the team to bear...or the bucs without derrick brooks due to his cap hit...one player for each team that way the fans can keep their local hereos

I seem to remember something along these lines being suggested before, that players that were over a certain age or had played for their respective teams for a certain number of years could be somewhat exempt from the cap...I believe only have a portion of their salary or signing bonus count against.