Should NFL owners get paid by the win?

[Rain Man]

We've heard more talk recently about whether teams should - or do - intentionally tank seasons now to get a top draft pick. While it's for the most part stupid and crazy talk by people who don't know the difference between life and video games, the incentive does exist, and we do know that the Colts did it a couple of years ago since there were over 150,000 options better than Curtis Painter.

I don't know exactly what the profit level is for a typical NFL tam, but if you set aside a pool of TV money and gave teams a set amount per win at the end of the year, enough to make a difference in their bottom line, would it encourage owners to put the best team on the field every year?

I don't know if that number is $100,000 per win or $500,000 or $1 million. You'd want to make it enough that it would make the owner's silicone-heavy trophy wife squeal in glee after each win, but not so much that it puts a losing team in huge financial jeopardy. You'd want it to be enough that an owner would prefer an eight-win season over a two-win season if he can control it, so that fans get the best product during their TV-viewing experience.*

Or now that I think about it, maybe it's not a bad idea to make the owner of a perennial loser start taking a bath every year so he'd sell the team.



* - Because no one can afford to go to the games in person any more since the owners are maximizing revenue regardless of how bad their team plays.

[cdcox]

The NFL is exempt from antitrust laws. That pretty much makes it a monopoly.

As a fan, I agree that it should be a monopoly because it is the best way to put the best product on the field. But as a condition of being exempt from antitrust laws, I'd love to see a proposal such as mine to make more competition within the structure of the league.

In short, I think the NFL should be a monopoly, but their owners and teams should be pressured to be more subject to artificial competitive forces since they are exempt from the major effects of typical market based forces.

[Beef Supreme]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

That would be a fun movie script. All of the league's best players are aging, and none of them have rings because the Patriots win them all. They all talk at the pro bowl and hatch a plan. They find the most sad-sack, unsuccessful franchise in the league, sign vet minimum contracts, and the season follows the new Chiefs team as they make a one-time Dream Team shot to go out with a championship.

But they lose, because dramatic effect, and we are the Chiefs.

[Ming the Merciless]

I guess I really dont see the point in allocating even more money to winning teams....and the winning teams are going to reap rewards JUST from winning (playoff tickets, playoff beer/hotdogs...etc.)

What is the goal of this? To give more of an incentive to the owner to win games? To weed out bad owners?


If thats the goal, maybe just have a contract where an owner doesnt win X number of playoff games over a 10 year/20 year period they are forced to sell the team?

I think that would be a better way of handling that goal with a non game breaking method.

[Ming the Merciless]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

That would be a fun movie script. All of the league's best players are aging, and none of them have rings because the Patriots win them all. They all talk at the pro bowl and hatch a plan. They find the most sad-sack, unsuccessful franchise in the league, sign vet minimum contracts, and the season follows the new Chiefs team as they make a one-time Dream Team shot to go out with a championship.

rep

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

But they lose, because dramatic effect, and we are the Chiefs.

Well, of course. It would be a surprise ending to everybody but Chiefs fans.

I see it playing out with a dramatic drive downfield in the last minute of the game to the one-yard line, and then our future hall of fame kicker would miss an 18-yard field goal as time runs out.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

YHowever, it would still give me the willies if two teams made identical offers to a player, and he had a financial incentive to go to the stronger team atop those identical offers.

1. Luckily there are 32 teams, rather than 2.

2. Let's call the base salary x. The true value of any player, let's call it z, is always unknown. Likewise the value of playoff bonus dollars, let's call this y, for each team is unknown. Teams are trying to maximize z while minimizing x. They have additional motives to maximize y. Players are trying to maximize x + y and want to maximize their z because it maximizes y. It seems like all of the elements for a competitive market are in place. Teams that best estimate z and players perceptions of y will be able to make the optimum offers of x.

In your example, the two teams are offering the same x. Y is perceived to be higher for one of the two teams, thus the estimate of the true ability of the player (z) made by the two teams is different. The team that better estimates z as a reflection of their offer (x + y) will come out better in the end and thus field a more competitive team.

Finally you mention many non-financial factors that would cause a player to select a team, most related to winning, but some related to market size. Since owners now have win to make money, it makes winning even more important since you won't be able to get good players if you don't win.

In many ways, it seems that the proposed NFL model shares aspects of the college model (top players want to go top teams plus trade offs between top team and opportunity to play). It should be noted that there is significant drift among the top college teams from year to year and decade to decade. The top dogs in the NFL would have much more ability to change relative position since the NFL has a parity draft, which colleges do not have.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Well, of course. It would be a surprise ending to everybody but Chiefs fans.

I see it playing out with a dramatic drive downfield in the last minute of the game to the one-yard line, and then our future hall of fame kicker would miss an 18-yard field goal as time runs out.

I had a visceral emotional reaction just reading that.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by cdcox

I had a visceral emotional reaction just reading that.

It would be like the ending of Rocky, but without the moral victory.

[Valiant]

**** that.

If that is the case, I would rather all teams become property of the cities they are in. Most of the stadium building costs come from them anyway.

Set ceiling and floors for team salaries. Owner/GM gets a percentage from wins/playoffs. All extra money goes to city. This includes tv/merch. Successful owners/GMs would make more from winning. But the cities could use the profits for schools and lower taxes on citizens.

All of this would be public information though, so the cities can not misuse it or steal it.

[Dayze]

Cddox for commish.