Jim Harbaugh’s College Football Proposal

[Thelonebillsfan]

1 minute ago, JTagg7754 said:

..................... you don't get it. 

IF the league was set up the way you're wanting it to be, I would bet quite a bit we'd see a substantial rise in success of warmer weather team especially in warm weather states especially those that don't have taxes... call it a hunch. 

There's literally nothing preventing what you're saying from happening, right now. Free agency is still a thing lol. Creative cap moves would and should make these warm weather tax haven states champions every year. A Florida team hasn't even been in the SB since 2002.

[ramssuperbowl99]

1 minute ago, JTagg7754 said:

Guy said that there's parity in other leagues (assuming he meant Europe) and they don't have a draft. That was instantly debunked by your data. We don't know that the draft adds parity but your data suggests sports that do have a draft, have more parity. Do we ultimately know that's what causes it? Nope but we know it exists in the sports w/ the most parity. Attribute it to whatever you want.

@Thelonebillsfan didn't say Europe has as much parity. He said they still have competitive/quality products, which is true. tbh the idea that you need parity for sports to be entertaining isn't true (and if you disagree, please take a look at the title of this forum).

Europe isn't a good method for comparison because they have the 1 thing that actually is needed for parity in a sports league: revenue sharing. 

[Thelonebillsfan]

1 minute ago, JTagg7754 said:

Nah, just another "muh billionaires" rant. I'm over it b/c it will go nowhere lol

Lol, man you really should learn to read buddy.

My argument: Owners should spend more money, that's the way you create parity. 

But be mad I guess, that's cool.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Thelonebillsfan

[BobbyPhil1781]

1 minute ago, winitall said:

So you are saying that top talent would continue to flock to a loaded team rather than go somewhere they will have better opportunities but worse weather? There is zero chance of that. Guys are going where they can play so they secure a bigger second contract. 

Depends on what motivates them; money or winning. It's easy to give people a lot of money and avoid cap hits. We're both right and wrong here b/c human beings are complex and not alike

[BobbyPhil1781]

1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

@Thelonebillsfan didn't say Europe has as much parity. He said they still have competitive/quality products, which is true. tbh the idea that you need parity for sports to be entertaining isn't true (and if you disagree, please take a look at the title of this forum).

Europe isn't a good method for comparison because they have the 1 thing that actually is needed for parity in a sports league: revenue sharing. 

I'm hardly under the impression I need parity to be entertained. I'm watching Korean baseball ffs lol

And Europe is obviously doing it wrong based on your data b/c they have 0 parity

[Thelonebillsfan]

Gee I wonder why the teams with the highest revenue are the ones who spend the most and win the most.

Some mysteries will never be solved I guess.

[ramssuperbowl99]

3 minutes ago, JTagg7754 said:

Now I see where this is going and what the intentions are. 

If you think Tom Brady changed the sport by taking $10MM/year paycuts, it only follows that the NFL owners who consistently keep their spending towards the lower end of the 90-100% salary cap range (which is a $20MM/year band) have a similar kind of impact.

[Thelonebillsfan]

Just now, JTagg7754 said:

I'm hardly under the impression I need parity to be entertained. I'm watching Korean baseball ffs lol

And Europe is obviously doing it wrong based on your data b/c they have 0 parity

You continue to showcase a staggering inability to have basic reading comprehension, it's v impressive.

[winitall]

Just now, JTagg7754 said:

Depends on what motivates them; money or winning. It's easy to give people a lot of money and avoid cap hits. We're both right and wrong here b/c human beings are complex and not alike

Players, especially young players, are motivated by money. Super Bowl rings are nice, but it doesn’t pay for things. 

[Thelonebillsfan]

Also like, you can live in Florida for 8 months a year and just claim that on your taxes, taxes for sports players is a lot more than "where do you live" because you have to file professionally in every state you play a game in that year.

[winitall]

1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

If you think Tom Brady changed the sport by taking $10MM/year paycuts, it only follows that the NFL owners who consistently keep their spending towards the lower end of the 90-100% salary cap range (which is a $20MM/year band) have a similar kind of impact.

I feel like it’s worth pointing out Tom is so well known for taking paycuts, because he is the only one that does. 

[ramssuperbowl99]

Just now, winitall said:

I feel like it’s worth pointing out Tom is so well known for taking paycuts, because he is the only one that does. 

Correct. Meanwhile you have owners who consistently spend at basically the 90% floor (sup Houston/Buffalo/Indy/Chargers).

[Thelonebillsfan]

The PA would be against removing the draft, sure, because the PA are stupid and bad and shortsighted. Removing it doesn't just throw rookies in on a permanent rotation (which is what happens anyway because the average career is 3 years at the minimum), it forces ownership to spend money, which impacts every other area of the sport.

Everybody eats better, except ownership, potentially, in this scenario.

[Packerraymond]

47 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

The math bears this out, and you can say something similar about the salary cap too.

http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2016/12/which-sports-league-has-the-most-parity/

The MLB, NFL, and NHL all had virtually identical parity despite the draft mattering a little bit in MLB, a little more in NHL, and a ton in the NFL and despite the NFL having a hard cap, NHL having a crazy weird cap, and the MLB having no cap.

Put another way: if the NFL draft and salary cap are intended to increase parity, then they're each failing.

Bad ownership makes bad decisions, the 49ers just showed this year how quickly you can turn things around in the NFL. Patriots, Ravens, Packers, Steelers, Seahawks, teams like that implement a system and promote from within and sustain success, while the bad teams are in a constant flux of change.

Parity in the NFL is where it is because some of the 32 franchises have figured out the best way to build successful organizations and keep them that way, and this proposed idea of removing the draft would then eliminate parity in a way that money and market size would rule the way parity is decided.

Probably the worst idea I've read on this site TBH. I would quit watching the NFL as I'm sure the Packers would be phased out within 5 years in that system. 

[Thelonebillsfan]

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

Bad ownership makes bad decisions, the 49ers just showed this year how quickly you can turn things around in the NFL. Patriots, Ravens, Packers, Steelers, Seahawks, teams like that implement a system and promote from within and sustain success, while the bad teams are in a constant flux of change.

Parity in the NFL is where it is because some of the 32 franchises have figured out the best way to build successful organizations and keep them that way, and this proposed idea of removing the draft would then eliminate parity in a way that money and market size would rule the way parity is decided.

Probably the worst idea I've read on this site TBH. I would quit watching the NFL as I'm sure the Packers would be phased out within 5 years in that system. 

The Packers have an operational income and a total revenue higher than 2/3rds of the league. You're worth more than the Steelers and the Dolphins.

Teams operate within the system efficiently, that would not be significantly different if you change the system, that just requires new ways to measure and exploit inefficiencies. 

Edited May 8, 2020 by Thelonebillsfan