My theory on scrapping the CBA

[Skilly]

I've been running some thoughts around in my noggin about this "what-if" scenario.

 

What if the league decided that they didn't want to fight these issues in court anymore, and simply decided to lift the lockout and begin the league fresh with all new structure? Not wanting to get sued for violating antilabor law, they do away with the draft and free agency. Any players already under contract could come in and play out their existing contracts. Free agents would be able to sign with anybody. There would be no union. No trading of players would be allowed, unless stipulated in their contracts.

 

I'm not sure how this year's crop of rookies would work...but I would imagine that the teams still maintained their rights over the selected players due to the stipulations in the last CBA and the fact that the players agreed to this by registering to enter the draft.

 

Would the NFL turn into baseball? Perhaps, but I am thinking that the injury rate would help to equal things out as far as parity goes. It's a radical idea, but these businessmen are smart and they might be up to the challenge to try something different---especially if it will save them money.

 

I realize this is just a simplistic vision, but perhaps it's the quickest way to get football back again.

[piratesownninjas]

they do away with the draft and free agency. Any players already under contract could come in and play out their existing contracts. Free agents would be able to sign with anybody. There would be no union. No trading of players would be allowed, unless stipulated in their contracts.

They also lose what makes this game so good, and you can kiss a lot of the teams with the deepest histories goodbye.

 

If they did this you can kiss the Steelers, Packers, and other great franchises goodbye. This is the worst possible outcome and would be the one thing that would get me to quit watching the NFL.

[Bronco Billy]

I don't watch MLB primaily because the bottom two thirds of the league function as fodder and farm clubs for the upper one third.

 

If the NFL went this way I wouldn't watch it either. This could be a travesty of epic proportions. This is the prime business model all pro sports ought to be following - why would anyone want to screw it up?

[SLAYER]

This is the prime business model all pro sports ought to be following - why would anyone want to screw it up?

Apparently the owners think otherwise.

[detlef]

There are plenty of reasons why the NFL is seemingly more competitive than other pro sports, but most have nothing to do with the reasons commonly given.

 

Everyone assumes that all the rookies would flock to the big markets if there was no draft. Odd, so why doesn't this happen with vet FAs?

 

Has it actually dawned on anyone that the biggest reason for the alleged parity in the NFL is the fact that they only play 16 games? So, while Browns fans get thrown a bone every few years because their team just needs to win 10 games to earn a spot in the playoffs, Royals fans have no hope because, regardless of how good they look after 20-30 games, eventually they'll be exposed by the length of the schedule.

 

There's other reasons as well, like the fact that it is far more of a team sport than either baseball or hoops. In fact, the major sport that is the most wide open in terms of who might win it from year to year is hockey. And hockey is likely the most team oriented.

 

There are plenty of ways the NFL could insure that every team has a chance to compete and the draft has been about the least effective way.

 

ETA: oh wait, I forgot. Because of the draft, Detroit was hope. After how many straight years of being crappy? But for a couple of years where they were good in the 90s, they've been crap for decades. But they're the example du jour of why the draft works. Because after a dozen straight years of being crappy, they might be turning the corner.

 

Hell, you could argue the draft makes the product worse because it robs the.fans the chance to see a guy like megatron on a decent team rather than toil away on a crap team like detroit

Edited May 30, 2011 by detlef

[Skilly]

They also lose what makes this game so good, and you can kiss a lot of the teams with the deepest histories goodbye.

 

If they did this you can kiss the Steelers, Packers, and other great franchises goodbye. This is the worst possible outcome and would be the one thing that would get me to quit watching the NFL.

 

I don't think that assumption is correct. There are still only 53 spots on a roster, not including practice squad. A team is only going to be able to keep so many players, so as long as they keep the roster size the same for each team, there should be plenty of talent to go around. I know that if I'm a player and I can't get signed on to a big market team, hell yeah I'm going to Green Bay to play because it's still going to be a higher paying job than anything else I can get. The talent will be there for the small market teams.

[Bronco Billy]

Apparently the owners think otherwise.

 

 

The owners want to maintain the current business model and base division of revenue on a more conservative bent based upon economic indicators that show a slowing of growth.

 

What are you talking about?

[Cunning Runt]

Apparently the owners think otherwise.

 

Wrong.

 

It's the players who are in court suing to turn everything upside down.

[kcmast]

I don't think that assumption is correct. There are still only 53 spots on a roster, not including practice squad. A team is only going to be able to keep so many players, so as long as they keep the roster size the same for each team, there should be plenty of talent to go around. I know that if I'm a player and I can't get signed on to a big market team, hell yeah I'm going to Green Bay to play because it's still going to be a higher paying job than anything else I can get. The talent will be there for the small market teams.

By talent you mean lesser than all 53 players on another team? Putting together teams of sub-par talent isn't going to get it done. Baseball has around 25 man rosters, so by your argument, there would be even more parity than the NFL.

Edited May 30, 2011 by kcmast

[Bronco Billy]

There are plenty of reasons why the NFL is seemingly more competitive than other pro sports, but most have nothing to do with the reasons commonly given.

 

Everyone assumes that all the rookies would flock to the big markets if there was no draft. Odd, so why doesn't this happen with vet FAs?

 

Has it actually dawned on anyone that the biggest reason for the alleged parity in the NFL is the fact that they only play 16 games? So, while Browns fans get thrown a bone every few years because their team just needs to win 10 games to earn a spot in the playoffs, Royals fans have no hope because, regardless of how good they look after 20-30 games, eventually they'll be exposed by the length of the schedule.

 

There's other reasons as well, like the fact that it is far more of a team sport than either baseball or hoops. In fact, the major sport that is the most wide open in terms of who might win it from year to year is hockey. And hockey is likely the most team oriented.

 

There are plenty of ways the NFL could insure that every team has a chance to compete and the draft has been about the least effective way.

 

ETA: oh wait, I forgot. Because of the draft, Detroit was hope. After how many straight years of being crappy? But for a couple of years where they were good in the 90s, they've been crap for decades. But they're the example du jour of why the draft works. Because after a dozen straight years of being crappy, they might be turning the corner.

 

Hell, you could argue the draft makes the product worse because it robs the.fans the chance to see a guy like megatron on a decent team rather than toil away on a crap team like detroit

 

Yeah, that's just the way it works in baseball. And it's only because the seaason is 162 games, and not because the large markets outspend the small markets by factors of 4 or more, and that the big markets rob the small markets of guys who they're spent years developing as they reach their prime. It is really a great thing for competitiveness and fan interest that teams like NY and Boston and Philly are loaded with studs while teams like PIT and KC only have a stud if they come up through the farm systems, and then the fans know that stud will get bought by the big guys in FA.

 

Gees, don't you ever get tired of being so GD wrong?

[kcmast]

Yeah, that's just the way it works in baseball. And it's only because the seaason is 162 games, and not because the large markets outspend the small markets by factors of 4 or more, and that the big markets rob the small markets of guys who they're spent years developing as they reach their prime. It is really a great thing for competitiveness and fan interest that teams like NY and Boston and Philly are loaded with studs while teams like PIT and KC only have a stud if they come up through the farm systems, and then the fans know that stud will get bought by the big guys in FA.

 

Gees, don't you ever get tired of being so GD wrong?

+1

I pay almost no attention to baseball because of this. And the Twins are becoming one of the bigger spenders.

[detlef]

Yeah, that's just the way it works in baseball. And it's only because the seaason is 162 games, and not because the large markets outspend the small markets by factors of 4 or more, and that the big markets rob the small markets of guys who they're spent years developing as they reach their prime. It is really a great thing for competitiveness and fan interest that teams like NY and Boston and Philly are loaded with studs while teams like PIT and KC only have a stud if they come up through the farm systems, and then the fans know that stud will get bought by the big guys in FA.

 

Gees, don't you ever get tired of being so GD wrong?

For starters, I was basically talking about the sacred cow that is the draft.

 

But regardless, let's talk about blowing the whole thing up. Let's talk about saving the game by sheltering captains of industry from the perils of the free market. Well, first we have to finish choking on the irony. And let's not even start with protecting them from the free market in addition to giving them public money to build their places of work.

 

So, on one end, you have baseball, which is about as close to the wild west as any of these leagues. Yet the data clearly shows that it is barely more predictable than football in terms of who is good and who is bad. There have been more different teams who have won the WS over the past 10 years than teams who have won the SB. And despite all the rules aimed at making it easier for owners who are bad at their jobs to compete with those who are, there ate just as many perrenially crappy teams in the NFL as there is in baseball.

 

And, as far as big markets running away with the league, which MLB team is on the verge of being taken over by the league? KC? Pitt? Nope, it's poor little LA.

 

I'm not arguing that sheltering the owners from the perils of the free market will not go a long way to insure their success. I mean, how could it not? I'm merely saying that it's not the only way they could make it work. But who can blame the owners for trying to convince us this is the only way?

[Bronco Billy]

For starters, I was basically talking about the sacred cow that is the draft.

 

But regardless, let's talk about blowing the whole thing up. Let's talk about saving the game by sheltering captains of industry from the perils of the free market. Well, first we have to finish choking on the irony. And let's not even start with protecting them from the free market in addition to giving them public money to build their places of work.

 

So, on one end, you have baseball, which is about as close to the wild west as any of these leagues. Yet the data clearly shows that it is barely more predictable than football in terms of who is good and who is bad. There have been more different teams who have won the WS over the past 10 years than teams who have won the SB. And despite all the rules aimed at making it easier for owners who are bad at their jobs to compete with those who are, there ate just as many perrenially crappy teams in the NFL as there is in baseball.

 

And, as far as big markets running away with the league, which MLB team is on the verge of being taken over by the league? KC? Pitt? Nope, it's poor little LA.

 

I'm not arguing that sheltering the owners from the perils of the free market will not go a long way to insure their success. I mean, how could it not? I'm merely saying that it's not the only way they could make it work. But who can blame the owners for trying to convince us this is the only way?

 

No, you're talking about blowing up what is clearly the most successful business model in pro sports - because you know so much better. And when confronted with evidence that other pro sports business models provide what is unequivocably a poorer product, you still manage to disagree - despite the indisputable results - all because you are so much smarter and know how to better run the NFL.

 

The absurdity is gold, pure gold. The best part is when you adamnantly deny that you don't take either side, and then proceed on yet another mindless rant against the owners and their positions.

[Ursa Majoris]

No, you're talking about blowing up what is clearly the most successful business model in pro sports

Why is it the most successful business model in pro sports? I'd venture that is solely because of the game itself being so attractive rather than any secret sauce provided by the owners.

 

I'd also point out that while it is successful, it is a risk-free closed shop cartel, as are all pro sports in the US.

[detlef]

Why is it the most successful business model in pro sports? I'd venture that is solely because of the game itself being so attractive rather than any secret sauce provided by the owners.

 

I'd also point out that while it is successful, it is a risk-free closed shop cartel, as are all pro sports in the US.

Exactly. Ask the NHL if parity is a one-way ticket to untold riches. Right after you ask them how that Versus contract is treating them.

 

Again, I'm not saying that being sheltered from the market would not be an advantage for any business. Rather, that it is rather foolish to think that it is essential for success.

[Bronco Billy]

Why is it the most successful business model in pro sports? I'd venture that is solely because of the game itself being so attractive rather than any secret sauce provided by the owners.

 

Which is why owners of pro football teams made tens of millions every year within 5 years of the initial startup of the league, right?

 

It's taken literally decades - closing in on a century in 10 years, give or take - to get the league to this point. The league has stuck by its guns on how it did business while it slowly overtook baseball as the national pastime, and weathered competition from other pro leagues for the same sports entertainment dollars through things like the Bird/Magic/Jordan era in the NBA and the steroids induced homerun barrages in MLB.

 

Just because the league is as wildly successful as it is now doesn't mean it was inherently so from the onset. Quite the opposite, it treaded water for a long, long time while owners took great lengths to look out for the longterm welfare of the league. It's precisely this reason that Green Bay is the only publicly owned maajor pro sports franchise and competes equally with all other franchise right now - look at how the business model has worked in that instance, it's nothing short of spectacular and couldn't have worked in any other pro league.

 

Now that it has come to fruition, everyone wants slam the ownership group as being greedy selfish bastards. What about some consideration for what it took to get the NFL to where it is right now, and that a lot of owners with vision for the longterm health of the league want to continue with what their predecessors built the league into? Most don't want to see the JJs and Snyders of the league running wild and wrecking this great thing, which means they not only have to deal with players who have only their own immediate futures in their minds (nothing wrong with that - it's in their benefit, just like the majority of owners are looking out for the longterm health of their money printing machine as being in their benefit), they also have to deal with some of their shortsighted and in some cases idiotic brethren.

 

Not nearly as easy and simple as some seem to think it is. Unless you happen to be detlef, of course.

[Skilly]

Which is why owners of pro football teams made tens of millions every year within 5 years of the initial startup of the league, right?

 

It's taken literally decades - closing in on a century in 10 years, give or take - to get the league to this point. The league has stuck by its guns on how it did business while it slowly overtook baseball as the national pastime, and weathered competition from other pro leagues for the same sports entertainment dollars through things like the Bird/Magic/Jordan era in the NBA and the steroids induced homerun barrages in MLB.

 

Just because the league is as wildly successful as it is now doesn't mean it was inherently so from the onset. Quite the opposite, it treaded water for a long, long time while owners took great lengths to look out for the longterm welfare of the league. It's precisely this reason that Green Bay is the only publicly owned maajor pro sports franchise and competes equally with all other franchise right now - look at how the business model has worked in that instance, it's nothing short of spectacular and couldn't have worked in any other pro league.

 

Now that it has come to fruition, everyone wants slam the ownership group as being greedy selfish bastards. What about some consideration for what it took to get the NFL to where it is right now, and that a lot of owners with vision for the longterm health of the league want to continue with what their predecessors built the league into? Most don't want to see the JJs and Snyders of the league running wild and wrecking this great thing, which means they not only have to deal with players who have only their own immediate futures in their minds (nothing wrong with that - it's in their benefit, just like the majority of owners are looking out for the longterm health of their money printing machine as being in their benefit), they also have to deal with some of their shortsighted and in some cases idiotic brethren.

 

Not nearly as easy and simple as some seem to think it is. Unless you happen to be detlef, of course.

 

I essentially agree with your assessment. But it's entirely possible that the courts may rule that the NFL can't operate in the same way it has been--even with it's monumental success. The NFL may be given no choice but to operate like MLB. The NBA too, for that matter. For all we know, the courts will be setting precedent for all pro sports leagues to follow. I just hope that the League is spending some time working on a plan in this scenario.