Is the draft obsolete?

[Chandler#81]

To the Op:

 

um.. WHAT?!?

[ALF]

I think there should be a fair salary cap for veterans at each position. Greed can get out of control to fast. $20 million + for a good qb takes a big bite out of the salary cap to pay other players on the team.

[st pete gogolak]

Jay Berwanger was very first player drafted by the NFL. I think he was a Heisman Trophy winner. Never played a down in the NFL.

[BuffaloBillsMagic1]

Good teams draft good, bad teams draft guys like Troup and Easley in the top 1/2 of the draft .

[Saint Doug]

While I don't think I agree with the OP, we'll have to wait to see how the rookie salary cap changes the NFL landscape over the next 5 years, the thread is original and provacative. Look at page 1, it's littered with threads such as "Are the Jets forcing the Bills to take a QB?" or "Let's take Nassib in the 3rd".

[San Jose Bills Fan]

While I don't think I agree with the OP, we'll have to wait to see how the rookie salary cap changes the NFL landscape over the next 5 years, the thread is original and provacative. Look at page 1, it's littered with threads such as "Are the Jets forcing the Bills to take a QB?" or "Let's take Nassib in the 3rd".

 

Agreed. It's an interesting theoretical discussion as abolishing the draft would never happen.

 

But to those who think that a draftless league wouldn't work, I disagree.

[Cash]

No. The draft gives weak teams a chance to draft a franchise QB. If you fail at that exercise, tough luck.

 

Ask the Redskins and Colts if they feel the draft hurts parity.

 

But if all incoming rookies were free agents, there would be even more opportunities for weak teams to get their QB. The Browns (to use an example) could have just tried to outbid the Colts/Redskins for Luck/RG3, instead of having to settle for Brandon Weeden. The Bills could've tried to sign Luck instead of having no chance at him. (Not that they would have, but they could have.) And it's unlikely that we'd see another Aaron Rodgers scenario. I doubt any top prospect (even one that slid in the draft like Rodgers or Brady Quinn) would decide to sign with a team that had an entrenched starter in place.

 

I disagree with you also, as I think most will. However, for conversation sake, what system would you suggest for having college players join the NFL? If they were all treated as free agents, wouldn't contenders and large markets have an enormous advantage, especially with a rookie salary cap?

With no draft Dallas, Washington and NE would ensure all the top talent played on their teams every year as they can outbid everyone else for the kids right out of school. No draft = the same 5-6 teams competing for the championship every year.

Those 3 and maybe a couple more would have all the top talent. Take out the draft, keeping in the current rookie cap and think about what those teams would look like cutting the 4th string on type talent on their rosters and outbidding other teams for pure 1st -3rd round talent each year.

 

Who said anything about keeping a rookie cap? The key would be that instead of being draft-eligible, a player enters the league as an unrestricted free agent, and all teams are free to try to negotiate a contract with them. I don't think Luck would've been willing to sign with Dallas or NE to sit behind Romo or Brady, especially since someone with more cap room could've offered him 3-4 times as much money. Likewise, would Matt Kalil have signed with a team that already had a good LT to be his backup? No chance, because Minnesota or someone else would've outbid that team.

 

Absolutely terrible idea!!!! Dude do you realize if this were the case we would never be able to get any top rookies to sign with Buffalo

 

I agree that abolishing the draft would in general hurt the Bills, and probably other small market and/or cold weather cities with poor reputations -- Cleveland, Cincinnati and Jacksonville come to mind. Tough to predict how teams like the Packers or Steelers would be affected -- players want to play in big-market, warm cities, but they also want to win.

 

Anyway, the Bills typically have to overpay to get free agents. That probably wouldn't change in the case of the draft. Look at Kelly's quotes from the documentary about the 1983 draft: he cried when the Bills drafted him. There's no way he ever would've voluntarily signed with the Bills for anything but a ludicrous amount of money. Under the current system, the Bills can force a good player to play for them for a few years, during which time the player can realize that he was wrong about Buffalo and it's actually a fine city to live in and team to play for.

 

 

i will say this op: i admire you for making this thread--usually threads that try to attribute buffalo being awful to anything other than... well.. buffalo being AWFUL, are met with derision and mocking.

 

my problem with your system would be that it puts TOO much power in the hands of rookies. you could have a guy like luck come out and say, "im not signing anywhere until i get x, y and z." the problem with that is, it seems highly unlikely that a team would be able to sign guys like that year after year, to build a nucleus. sure, as a bad team, you might get lucky/get away with it one year (like us with mario last year), but then where does that leave you the following season?

 

Under a no-draft system, you would probably see top rookie salaries quickly get back up to Sam Bradford/Jake Long territory. However, teams would be under no obligation to give out those salaries, so in a given year, you might only see 1-2 mega contracts for rookies, rather than 5-6 under the old system. Guys who would've been 2nd or 3rd round picks would also see their salaries jump significantly.

 

Agreed. It's an interesting theoretical discussion as abolishing the draft would never happen.

 

But to those who think that a draftless league wouldn't work, I disagree.

 

Yes, there's way too much money made on the draft for it to go away. Especially when you consider that the draft money is part of the revenue pot that gets split with the players (i.e., establishes the amount of the salary cap), and that the only way to get rid of it would be in collective bargaining. The NFL will never propose getting rid of it, because it's an anti-competitive cost-cutter that also airs on TV to big ratings. The players union could theoretically propose getting rid of it, but why would they? They've all already been through the draft and get no benefit from it going away. In fact, the increased salaries to rookies would just take away money from existing players. Until the players union starts giving votes to college players who aren't in the union, I think the draft is safe.

[ny33]

Aside from the competitiveness aspect, the NFLPA would never allow this to happen.

[RK_BillsFan]

Without a draft, what incentive is there for a player to go to a bad team?

 

Because you have players that will want money and take the biggest contracts, and then you will have people that will take less money to win or at least have a shot at winning instead of withering away getting an ass kicking week in and week out.

 

If you offered me 100 million dollars vs 10 million and 4 Superbowl rings, i'd take the 10 million and 4 rings.

Edited April 24, 2013 by RK_BillsFan

[Wings and Beer]

Thinking that the salary cap saves this idea is short sighted. Players don't just go for the largest contract offered to them. They consider chances for championships, tv viewership, market, and endorsement dollars also. If the player happens to be a fool, you can be sure their agent will school them up. 2 mill contract in Buffalo, or 1.5 in NYC? All agents will put their player in NYC. The player would get more prime time games, have a larger fan base, become more well known, and earn significantly more endorsement dollars.

 

In short, large market successful teams would have to pay less for talent than small market unsuccessful teams. The salary cap wouldnt protect the bottom dwellers like buffalo.

 

No draft = unfairness to small markets.

 

This idea would help some unsuccessful large markets, such as the Raiders.

 

I believe that over time (decade ish ), not having a draft would insure that NY, LA, Chic, NE, Dal, and Mia would be the class of the NFL. Buff and other small markets would be devastated, and it would grow worse each year.

[uncle flap]

i will say this op: i admire you for making this thread--usually threads that try to attribute buffalo being awful to anything other than... well.. buffalo being AWFUL, are met with derision and mocking.

 

my problem with your system would be that it puts TOO much power in the hands of rookies. you could have a guy like luck come out and say, "im not signing anywhere until i get x, y and z." the problem with that is, it seems highly unlikely that a team would be able to sign guys like that year after year, to build a nucleus. sure, as a bad team, you might get lucky/get away with it one year (like us with mario last year), but then where does that leave you the following season?

 

no, surprisingly, i think the draft is perfect just the way it is in the nfl: it rewards the worst teams with the chances at the best players, and it is 75%/25% skill to luck in terms of hitting on your draft picks.

 

let me throw this one at you:

i think that the true problem with the nfl today, and for the last decade, has been its scheduling formula. it is absolutely, 100%, without question, inexcusably RIDICULOUS that, since 2002, teams within a division play a grand total of TWO games that are different from one another. every year, for the last 10 years, we've played the same schedule as the patriots, minus 2 games.

 

the difference between first and last place in the afc east, since switching to 4 teams in the division, has been (on average,) 7 games. 7 games a year separating first and last place since realignment, and yet, our schedules differ by only 2 games.

 

if this were one of the other 3 major sports, where seasons are 80-160 games, of course schedules would be similar. but in a league where 1 game is ALWAYS the difference between playoffs or no playoffs, to have teams that are so clearly discrepant in terms of talent levels playing (essentially) the same schedule, could lead to longer playoff droughts (us) and longer playoff runs of glory (new england) that make teams worse or better than they actually are.

 

my proposal (for an afc team):

 

home and away vs. everyone in your division (6)

play the team that corresponds to your place in the standings, in every nfc division (4)

if you finish first or second, play all first and second place teams in your conference/3rd and 4th v all 3rd and 4th teams (6)

 

lets take a look at who our opponents would be this year-bills and pats:

 

bills:

pats (2)/dolphins (2)/jets (2)/steelers/browns/titans/jaguars/chiefs/raiders/cardinals/buccaneers/lions/eagles

 

pats:

bills (2)/dolphins (2)/jets (2)/ravens/bengals/colts/texans/broncos/chargers/redskins/packers/falcons/49ers

 

now, for the bills, ive bolded the games that we might actually have a shot of winning...or at least, when i sat down in front of the tv, i wouldnt think "WERE GOING TO LOSE THIS GAME, IF WE WIN, IT WILL BE A MIRACLE." there are 13 of those games. wow.

 

for the patriots, ive highlighted games that they could, theoretically lose: and there are 6 of them.

 

how ANY fan of the national football league could read this post and not agree is beyond me. im waiting for the day when goodell stumbles across one of the MANY threads ive made on this subject across the internet, and implements it immediately.

 

I dig it, man

 

Thinking that the salary cap saves this idea is short sighted. Players don't just go for the largest contract offered to them. They consider chances for championships, tv viewership, market, and endorsement dollars also. If the player happens to be a fool, you can be sure their agent will school them up. 2 mill contract in Buffalo, or 1.5 in NYC? All agents will put their player in NYC. The player would get more prime time games, have a larger fan base, become more well known, and earn significantly more endorsement dollars.

 

In short, large market successful teams would have to pay less for talent than small market unsuccessful teams. The salary cap wouldnt protect the bottom dwellers like buffalo.

 

No draft = unfairness to small markets.

 

This idea would help some unsuccessful large markets, such as the Raiders.

 

I believe that over time (decade ish ), not having a draft would insure that NY, LA, Chic, NE, Dal, and Mia would be the class of the NFL. Buff and other small markets would be devastated, and it would grow worse each year.

 

Exactamente amigo!

[Orton's Arm]

i will say this op: i admire you for making this thread--usually threads that try to attribute buffalo being awful to anything other than... well.. buffalo being AWFUL, are met with derision and mocking.

 

my problem with your system would be that it puts TOO much power in the hands of rookies. you could have a guy like luck come out and say, "im not signing anywhere until i get x, y and z." the problem with that is, it seems highly unlikely that a team would be able to sign guys like that year after year, to build a nucleus. sure, as a bad team, you might get lucky/get away with it one year (like us with mario last year), but then where does that leave you the following season?

 

no, surprisingly, i think the draft is perfect just the way it is in the nfl: it rewards the worst teams with the chances at the best players, and it is 75%/25% skill to luck in terms of hitting on your draft picks.

 

let me throw this one at you:

i think that the true problem with the nfl today, and for the last decade, has been its scheduling formula. it is absolutely, 100%, without question, inexcusably RIDICULOUS that, since 2002, teams within a division play a grand total of TWO games that are different from one another. every year, for the last 10 years, we've played the same schedule as the patriots, minus 2 games.

 

the difference between first and last place in the afc east, since switching to 4 teams in the division, has been (on average,) 7 games. 7 games a year separating first and last place since realignment, and yet, our schedules differ by only 2 games.

 

if this were one of the other 3 major sports, where seasons are 80-160 games, of course schedules would be similar. but in a league where 1 game is ALWAYS the difference between playoffs or no playoffs, to have teams that are so clearly discrepant in terms of talent levels playing (essentially) the same schedule, could lead to longer playoff droughts (us) and longer playoff runs of glory (new england) that make teams worse or better than they actually are.

 

my proposal (for an afc team):

 

home and away vs. everyone in your division (6)

play the team that corresponds to your place in the standings, in every nfc division (4)

if you finish first or second, play all first and second place teams in your conference/3rd and 4th v all 3rd and 4th teams (6)

 

lets take a look at who our opponents would be this year-bills and pats:

 

bills:

pats (2)/dolphins (2)/jets (2)/steelers/browns/titans/jaguars/chiefs/raiders/cardinals/buccaneers/lions/eagles

 

pats:

bills (2)/dolphins (2)/jets (2)/ravens/bengals/colts/texans/broncos/chargers/redskins/packers/falcons/49ers

 

now, for the bills, ive bolded the games that we might actually have a shot of winning...or at least, when i sat down in front of the tv, i wouldnt think "WERE GOING TO LOSE THIS GAME, IF WE WIN, IT WILL BE A MIRACLE." there are 13 of those games. wow.

 

for the patriots, ive highlighted games that they could, theoretically lose: and there are 6 of them.

 

how ANY fan of the national football league could read this post and not agree is beyond me. im waiting for the day when goodell stumbles across one of the MANY threads ive made on this subject across the internet, and implements it immediately.

 

> my problem with your system would be that it puts TOO much power in the hands of rookies.

 

Exactly right. A highly touted rookie--especially someone at a premium position like QB--would be immediately able to start a bidding war for his services. He'd pit teams against each other; making them compete to see which one would offer him the most guaranteed money, the longest contract, the richest contract, etc.

 

In an earlier thread, I pointed out that as a percentage of profits, Jamarcus Russell was more highly paid than the best paid CEO in America. That situation was completely absurd; and is why the draft + rookie salary cap makes sense. But if Russell had come into the NFL under the OP's system, one supposes the bidding for him would have been even higher. That's just way too much money going to a player who produced exactly nothing of value.

 

Every dollar you give to an undeserving player has to come from somewhere. If undeserving players are collectively going to start receiving more money, then one of three things has to happen: 1) the owners will have to make do with less money, 2) the fans will have to pay more, or 3) deserving players will have to receive less money.

 

As for 1), the owners are unlikely to agree to decrease their share of the pie in order to implement the OP's plan. As for 2), most owners are already milking fans for everything they can. Therefore, the money for the plan will have to come from source 3)--that is, out of the pockets of deserving players.

 

There are a number of problems with that; in addition to the obvious one of fairness. If a team locks itself into a long-term deal with a Jamarcus Russell--with large amounts of guaranteed money paid out--it could take years to recover from that. Let's say a team realizes, a year into his contract, that he's not going to work out. They also realize that they simply can't release him, because then their salary cap would get hit with the entirety of his bonus in one gigantic lump. Or, if they were to release him that year, they'd have to release a lot of other players too; in order to make room for all that dead cap space. On the other hand, every additional year they keep him around represents large amounts of new money getting paid to a player they no longer want.

 

The OP's proposal would make the above-described problems worse than they've ever been before. That said, I take my hat off to him for thinking outside the box. Even though I disagree with this particular idea of his, I'm sure if he keeps at it he'll come up with some other new idea with which I'd agree.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Edwards' Arm

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

i will say this op: i admire you for making this thread--usually threads that try to attribute buffalo being awful to anything other than... well.. buffalo being AWFUL, are met with derision and mocking.

 

my problem with your system would be that it puts TOO much power in the hands of rookies. you could have a guy like luck come out and say, "im not signing anywhere until i get x, y and z." the problem with that is, it seems highly unlikely that a team would be able to sign guys like that year after year, to build a nucleus. sure, as a bad team, you might get lucky/get away with it one year (like us with mario last year), but then where does that leave you the following season?

 

no, surprisingly, i think the draft is perfect just the way it is in the nfl: it rewards the worst teams with the chances at the best players, and it is 75%/25% skill to luck in terms of hitting on your draft picks.

 

let me throw this one at you:

i think that the true problem with the nfl today, and for the last decade, has been its scheduling formula. it is absolutely, 100%, without question, inexcusably RIDICULOUS that, since 2002, teams within a division play a grand total of TWO games that are different from one another. every year, for the last 10 years, we've played the same schedule as the patriots, minus 2 games.

 

the difference between first and last place in the afc east, since switching to 4 teams in the division, has been (on average,) 7 games. 7 games a year separating first and last place since realignment, and yet, our schedules differ by only 2 games.

 

if this were one of the other 3 major sports, where seasons are 80-160 games, of course schedules would be similar. but in a league where 1 game is ALWAYS the difference between playoffs or no playoffs, to have teams that are so clearly discrepant in terms of talent levels playing (essentially) the same schedule, could lead to longer playoff droughts (us) and longer playoff runs of glory (new england) that make teams worse or better than they actually are.

 

my proposal (for an afc team):

 

home and away vs. everyone in your division (6)

play the team that corresponds to your place in the standings, in every nfc division (4)

if you finish first or second, play all first and second place teams in your conference/3rd and 4th v all 3rd and 4th teams (6)

 

lets take a look at who our opponents would be this year-bills and pats:

 

bills:

pats (2)/dolphins (2)/jets (2)/steelers/browns/titans/jaguars/chiefs/raiders/cardinals/buccaneers/lions/eagles

 

pats:

bills (2)/dolphins (2)/jets (2)/ravens/bengals/colts/texans/broncos/chargers/redskins/packers/falcons/49ers

 

now, for the bills, ive bolded the games that we might actually have a shot of winning...or at least, when i sat down in front of the tv, i wouldnt think "WERE GOING TO LOSE THIS GAME, IF WE WIN, IT WILL BE A MIRACLE." there are 13 of those games. wow.

 

for the patriots, ive highlighted games that they could, theoretically lose: and there are 6 of them.

 

how ANY fan of the national football league could read this post and not agree is beyond me. im waiting for the day when goodell stumbles across one of the MANY threads ive made on this subject across the internet, and implements it immediately.

So essentially what you want is a slanted system where the schedule allows teams that suck to make the playoffs at the expense of teams that are indisputably better. Sorry, but I'm a fan of the NFL, and what you propose is even worse than giving out participation trophies.

 

Let me throw this one at you - - how about if we improve enough so that we deserve to be in the playoffs?

[billsfan89]

No. The draft gives weak teams a chance to draft a franchise QB. If you fail at that exercise, tough luck.

 

Ask the Redskins and Colts if they feel the draft hurts parity.

 

Pretty much also what method would you have college players enter the league? You would run into the problem the league had before the rookie pay scale. The top 40-50 college players would demand huge salaries without having to play a down and it throw off the competitive balance of the league.

 

I don't see the draft as broken, I see it more so as being less effective because the talent pool is much deeper.

[plenzmd1]

So, i tend to agree with the OP, but with maybe one slight modification. What if you still had a rookie cap,but it moved up or down based on your record? Not saying these figures are right, but lets say if you finish 30th. in league you get $20m, and if you win SB, $5m.

 

BTW, Baseball id not have a draft till 1965,However tough to draw comparisons i believe as no salary cap or revenue share in place then.