Another issue with the draft

[detlef]

I find it hilarious that the NFL should scrap a system that has helped become one of the most succesful pro sports league in the world.

Oh, and this just in. You do realize that all the other major pro sports leagues in North America have a draft, right? So, just maybe the NFL's draft isn't why it's more successful than the others?

 

Actually, I think the reason the NFL is the best is because they use a ball.

[Schleprock]

detlef - quite an interesting read and I think both sides make some valid points. It got me to thinking about why the top college programs remain at or near the top year in, year out. I think what it comes down to is A) Reputation and B the talent pool and how it's cultivated. While (A) is quite self explanatory (marketing and TV can have a great influence), I think point B is where to try to explore possibilities for the NFL.

 

A top recruit out of High School is presented with choices. There will be any number of colleges or universities willing to offer a scholarship. And each of those programs may have a totally different approach to their football program. Big 10 schools are 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Pac 10 schools typically are slinging the ball around. SEC schools pride themselves as being pro type offenses. In any case, the student has some level of choice - thus a vested interest - in the outcome. The schools are in effect "bidding" for the students' services and the cost of doing business is a scholarship and one helluva job interview for the pros.

 

Now applying this to the draft you find one glaring problem: the prospective NFL player has no choice as to where they end up. Drafted by the Raiders? Tough luck. The Patriots? Perform or get cut. And the list goes on. Take a look at Michael Crabtree for your beloved Niners. The fact of the matter is that I don't blame the kid one bit for trying to get every penny he can in guaranteed money. I also don't blame the front office for trying to save that same penny. There's the rub. Michael Crabtree doesn't have any other outlet to "shop" his services (the foundation of capitalism and market theories that the correct price for a commodity is when the buyer perceives that the value of what they're giving up is at least equal to what they'll receive in return). To a certain degree, Crabtree was being held hostage to a situation where his perceived return wasn't worth what they were willing to pay.

 

The problem in reconciling this is that the NFL owners are, in essence, taking all the risk. Too many of the high level draft picks turn out to be busts. Some because they see the initial contract as "getting paid" for all the work they've done to get to that point. Some due to injuries. Some just because the teams are so poorly constructed that even a great player cannot reach the expectations. Regardless of combine numbers, personality tests, IQ tests, countless interviews, etc. there is no true way to measure a person's internal desire to succeed. At a certain point, you have to go on faith in your process and use prior results to predict the future.

 

Where does that leave us? Right where we are. Until more teams have competent GM's and draft evaluators (which won't be any time soon), there is still a gamble. While I like the idea of scrapping the draft, the process of using a college style recruiting method with much higher bidding parameters similar to an all out auction, the logistics are just too difficult.

 

Ultimately, I think the problem isn't necessarily the draft itself, but the fact that too many of these owners think they know something about football when the clearly do not. Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder, Al Davis, etc. They treat their teams too much like we treat our fantasy teams. If they'd delegate authority and become less meddlesome, I think the draft works. The owners should concentrate their efforts on the BUSINESS of football, not the X's and O's.

 

 

edited to remove dam emoticons.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Schleprock

[detlef]

detlef - quite an interesting read and I think both sides make some valid points. It got me to thinking about why the top college programs remain at or near the top year in, year out. I think what it comes down to is A) Reputation and B the talent pool and how it's cultivated. While (A) is quite self explanatory (marketing and TV can have a great influence), I think point B is where to try to explore possibilities for the NFL.

 

A top recruit out of High School is presented with choices. There will be any number of colleges or universities willing to offer a scholarship. And each of those programs may have a totally different approach to their football program. Big 10 schools are 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Pac 10 schools typically are slinging the ball around. SEC schools pride themselves as being pro type offenses. In any case, the student has some level of choice - thus a vested interest - in the outcome. The schools are in effect "bidding" for the students' services and the cost of doing business is a scholarship and one helluva job interview for the pros.

 

Now applying this to the draft you find one glaring problem: the prospective NFL player has no choice as to where they end up. Drafted by the Raiders? Tough luck. The Patriots? Perform or get cut. And the list goes on. Take a look at Michael Crabtree for your beloved Niners. The fact of the matter is that I don't blame the kid one bit for trying to get every penny he can in guaranteed money. I also don't blame the front office for trying to save that same penny. There's the rub. Michael Crabtree doesn't have any other outlet to "shop" his services (the foundation of capitalism and market theories that the correct price for a commodity is when the buyer perceives that the value of what they're giving up is at least equal to what they'll receive in return). To a certain degree, Crabtree was being held hostage to a situation where his perceived return wasn't worth what they were willing to pay.

 

The problem in reconciling this is that the NFL owners are, in essence, taking all the risk. Too many of the high level draft picks turn out to be busts. Some because they see the initial contract as "getting paid" for all the work they've done to get to that point. Some due to injuries. Some just because the teams are so poorly constructed that even a great player cannot reach the expectations. Regardless of combine numbers, personality tests, IQ tests, countless interviews, etc. there is no true way to measure a person's internal desire to succeed. At a certain point, you have to go on faith in your process and use prior results to predict the future.

 

Where does that leave us? Right where we are. Until more teams have competent GM's and draft evaluators (which won't be any time soon), there is still a gamble. While I like the idea of scrapping the draft, the process of using a college style recruiting method with much higher bidding parameters similar to an all out auction, the logistics are just too difficult.

 

Ultimately, I think the problem isn't necessarily the draft itself, but the fact that too many of these owners think they know something about football when the clearly do not. Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder, Al Davis, etc. They treat their teams too much like we treat our fantasy teams. If they'd delegate authority and become less meddlesome, I think the draft works. The owners should concentrate their efforts on the BUSINESS of football, not the X's and O's.

 

 

edited to remove dam emoticons.

Good points, thought I do take exception with one in particular. The bit about the owners taking all the risk. As long as data still shows the long term ill-effects of having played in the NFL, I'd say the players are taking plenty as well. A different risk, of course, but a risk none the less.

 

Further, are the owners really taking that much of a risk? They're going to spend pretty much their entire cap number every year anyway and so much of their income is locked in through shared revenues. Besides the value of every NFL franchise continues to grow. So what, really, is the bottom line hit to paying the wrong guy a bunch of cash? Paying a bunch of wrong guys, many years in a row, certainly but that's a different story.

[Schleprock]

Further, are the owners really taking that much of a risk? They're going to spend pretty much their entire cap number every year anyway and so much of their income is locked in through shared revenues. Besides the value of every NFL franchise continues to grow. So what, really, is the bottom line hit to paying the wrong guy a bunch of cash? Paying a bunch of wrong guys, many years in a row, certainly but that's a different story.

 

I look at franchises like Detroit, Oakland, Dallas (since Jerry eliminated Jimmy). In those instances, they all sell the sizzle even though the steak is deplorable (this coming from a lifelong Cowboys fan). Teams like Buffalo and Jacksonville - you don't see sellouts.

 

While I agree that their risk is different, the ultimate payoff for these owners is the ability to leverage against the supposed value of the named franchise. At some point, people will not show up to watch an inferior product (see Detroit last year). When that happens, their risk is measured in hundreds of millions.

 

What's the common theme between Detroit, Dallas, Oakland, Washington and many more? Owners that try to treat football players like commodities in a business environment. Doesn't work. Let the football people make football decisions. Then the draft works. Until that happens, everyone is going to continue looking for answers.....

[Seahawks21]

There is little to no risk owning an NFL team. It is an investment that ends well 99% of the time.

 

Think back. Why were drafts implemented in the first place? I know the salary cap changes the benefits a little bit, but the results would still be the same. You had a few teams that could get as many of the good players as they could afford to pay. With the exception of the Lions, Bengals, Browns, and until last year the Cards, have any teams really been that bad for that long? It seems to me that until the NFL loses parody, which it has on a game-by-game basis more so than any other sport, the necessity isn't there to restructure their model.

 

The 49ers took a terrible pick at #1 overall a few years ago, or at least selected a player that hasn't worked out. Your logic would suggest that it has crumbled them as a franchise five years down the road. Then you look up and at this point they are the favorite to win their division. The Raiders and Lions are the Raiders and Lions. No structure or lack of one could possibly help them.

 

The rookie payment structure is out of control, not many can even attempt to argue that. The theory is sound however. The worst teams should get the opportunity to pick whatever players their hired evaluators consider the best possible fits for their team. That is the most democratic way to do this. Whether or not it works is up to the evaluators and old-fashioned luck. Seems to me that if you restructure the contracts, having bad luck won't kill a team's future. I don't agree that you need to go so far as to blow up the entire process.