Jim Harbaugh’s College Football Proposal

[ramssuperbowl99]

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. 

As long as you have equal revenue sharing, there is no "market size". The Packers make just as much in TV money as the Cowboys.

[Thelonebillsfan]

I also take umbrage at the idea that the Patriots are the "exception to the rule" considering they've been in 13 of the last 20 AFCCG's.  When you've been doing it for 20 years you're not "excepted" from anything. You are the rule.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Thelonebillsfan

[Thelonebillsfan]

2 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

As long as you have equal revenue sharing, there is no "market size". The Packers make just as much in TV money as the Cowboys.

They all make the same amount of money from the same pool, the reason the top teams are good and the bottom teams aren't is because the spending difference between them is absurd. Newcastle makes the 11th most money (with only 8M difference in being the 7th most) and spends a fraction of it. Their total payroll was almost 100M less than their total revenue sharing payment.

That's not even gauging total revenue, just the add from revenue sharing.

[BobbyPhil1781]

4 minutes ago, Thelonebillsfan said:

I also take umbrage at the idea that the Patriots are the "exception to the rule" considering they've been in 13 of the last 20 AFCCG's.  When you've been doing it for 20 years you're not "excepted" from anything. You are the rule.

When a run like that ever been done prior? 

There you go. Exception to the rule. Just like your stupid Jim Kelly analogy. You live on the exception. 

Ok done. You just needed info bc you were clearly not understanding even though I pretty much repeated myself.

[Packerraymond]

1 minute ago, Thelonebillsfan said:

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. 

I'm going to have to recruit players to play in Green Bay now, we have a hard enough time of that in FA and have to overpay (see old Jimmy Graham being the highest paid TE in the league). We had a run of teams in the early 2010's where Charles Woodson and John Kuhn were the only players who had ever been in camp of another NFL franchise. Our model is draft, develop, re-sign. In the latter years of Ted we had 2-3 bad drafts in which those players all left and allowed for a flux of cash for the recent spending we've seen, but our model would prefer we developed those guys internally and had 4-5 cost controlled years of them.

Now if as a college kid I can enter a pool where teams bid on my services, why am I picking GB ? If I've got similar offers coming out of school from Dallas, Miami, LA and Green Bay and my path to a starting spot in comparable in each situation, why am I choosing a suburban Northern Wisconsin city? How much more money am I going to have to offer to get that individual to come here? Now if we wave all salary cap I guess it becomes less of an disadvantage as the fan base financially supports the team in the highest percentiles of the pro sports. Still we have no owner with pockets of his own, so if league spending went sky high, could we keep up?

There's nothing about this idea that would improve the NFL revenue streams, so I'm not in the least bit concerned of it ever even being considered. It's just not a good idea, sorry. The fact that Joe Burrow can have the best college FB season maybe ever, and end it up a barren market like Cincy where I'm sure ticket sales are already way up to see him play this year is what makes the NFL what it is, fan bases feel like they're one home run pick away no matter how bad they are.  

[Thelonebillsfan]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

-

If your model is draft and develop then it literally doesn't change at all if you no longer have a draft. You sign guys at market rate or under market so you can add more of them that you think "if we get him in the space we can develop him". It's exactly the same. The model doesn't change because the system changes, the way you function within the system changes, the model itself is exactly the same. And if league spending skyrockets, the Packers are in one of the best positions to handle that, again, you're the 9th-10th rated team in total revenue in any given year. 

[BobbyPhil1781]

The funny thing is, they're comparing revenue streams now, with how things are currently, and thinking it'll transfer over with this new proposed thought..... No, that's not how it'll work. 

[Thelonebillsfan]

Just now, JTagg7754 said:

The funny thing is, they're comparing revenue streams now, with how things are currently, and thinking it'll transfer over with this new proposed thought..... No, that's not how it'll work. 

Lmao literally how would revenue be tangibly impacted by there not being a draft, revenue is TV sharing + tickets + associated revenue adds. There being a draft or not a draft in a league with a hard salary cap makes zero difference in total revenue.

[ramssuperbowl99]

9 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

I'm going to have to recruit players to play in Green Bay now, we have a hard enough time of that in FA and have to overpay (see old Jimmy Graham being the highest paid TE in the league). We had a run of teams in the early 2010's where Charles Woodson and John Kuhn were the only players who had ever been in camp of another NFL franchise. Our model is draft, develop, re-sign. In the latter years of Ted we had 2-3 bad drafts in which those players all left and allowed for a flux of cash for the recent spending we've seen, but our model would prefer we developed those guys internally and had 4-5 cost controlled years of them.

Now if as a college kid I can enter a pool where teams bid on my services, why am I picking GB ? If I've got similar offers coming out of school from Dallas, Miami, LA and Green Bay and my path to a starting spot in comparable in each situation, why am I choosing a suburban Northern Wisconsin city? How much more money am I going to have to offer to get that individual to come here? Now if we wave all salary cap I guess it becomes less of an disadvantage as the fan base financially supports the team in the highest percentiles of the pro sports. Still we have no owner with pockets of his own, so if league spending went sky high, could we keep up?

There's nothing about this idea that would improve the NFL revenue streams, so I'm not in the least bit concerned of it ever even being considered. It's just not a good idea, sorry. The fact that Joe Burrow can have the best college FB season maybe ever, and end it up a barren market like Cincy where I'm sure ticket sales are already way up to see him play this year is what makes the NFL what it is, fan bases feel like they're one home run pick away no matter how bad they are.  

So now it's not actually improving parity, it's giving fans the appearance of parity that matters?

Just trying to keep track of what the pro-draft argument is.

[BobbyPhil1781]

4 minutes ago, Thelonebillsfan said:

Lmao literally how would revenue be tangibly impacted by there not being a draft, revenue is TV sharing + tickets + associated revenue adds. There being a draft or not a draft in a league with a hard salary cap makes zero difference in total revenue.

You think as many people will watch the Packers with a bunch of scrubs bc quality players chose warmer cities and GB got the leftovers as they do now as a Super Bowl contender? You think as many people will go to games and sit in the cold (more possible then the previous example though)?

LOL

Yeah, not happening. You keep thinking what you want to make yourself seem right though. At least you're consistent

Edited May 8, 2020 by JTagg7754

[ramssuperbowl99]

1 minute ago, JTagg7754 said:

You think as many people will watch the Packers with a bunch of scrubs bc quality players chose warmer cities and GB got the leftovers as they do now as a Super Bowl contender? You think as many people will go to games and sit in the cold (more possible then the previous example though)?

LOL

Yeah, not happening. You keep thinking what you want to make yourself seem right though. At least you're consistent

A free for all battle royale with 250 players needing to come to agreements over a period of week or two would generate tons of revenue for the league. It'd be like taking the best entertainment value of the NFL and NBA free agency and combining them.

[Packerraymond]

1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

So now it's not actually improving parity, it's giving fans the appearance of parity that matters?

Just trying to keep track of what the pro-draft argument is.

It all comes back to your process like I said in the first post. If you draft well in the NFL, there's no chance you won't have and sustain success. The NFL has all the tools for parity at teams disposal. it's the reason elite QBs don't win a million titles, despite being the most important position in sports. Rodgers, Brees, Wilson all 1 SB, Manning had 1 until Elways decided to go so "all in" he's basically made Denver suck since. Brady and BB have ruined that graph or I'm sure it would look a lot different. 

[winitall]

23 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

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

Somewhat besides the point, but the NFL should get rid of the cap floor and replace it with an annual cash payments floor. Dead cap space from players out of the league does nothing for active players. 

[Thelonebillsfan]

2 minutes ago, JTagg7754 said:

You think as many people will watch the Packers with a bunch of scrubs bc quality players chose warmer cities and GB got the leftovers as they do now as a Super Bowl contender? You think as many people will go to games and sit in the cold (more possible then the previous example though)?

LOL

Yeah, not happening. You keep thinking what you want to make yourself seen right though. At least you're consistent

NFL ratings don't drastically change depending on who's playing, people watch bad teams play all the time. The Packers revenue will not dry up overnight if they're bad, that's not how this works.

You're claiming some bizarre authority and superiority when you're just making wild and random suppositions based only on your intuition and a false premise.

[Thelonebillsfan]

Just now, winitall said:

Somewhat besides the point, but the NFL should get rid of the cap floor and replace it with an annual cash payments floor. Dead cap space from players out of the league does nothing for active players. 

Pssssssssst, that's intentional to keep roster payouts lower.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Thelonebillsfan