Football Should NFL owners get paid by the win?

**Rain Man** · 09-01-2014, 05:07 PM

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.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 09-01-2014, 05:10 PM

The PGA Tour has always had the best salary structure, but it doesn't easily lend itself to team sports.

That said, I still think that owners should get pro-rated shares of TV money based upon RS W-L records and playoff success.

You want to do everything possible to make sure that people like Al Davis or the Hunt family never own NFL teams. There's no financial incentive to build anything worthwhile for the fans, which is asinine for an entertainment product you have to pay to attend.

**Bufkin** · 09-01-2014, 05:13 PM

No. Mainly because I'm a big Shao Kahn fan and I want him to get paid regardless of how shitty Jacksonville is. I'm not actually a big fan, I just like his mustache.

**Rain Man** · 09-01-2014, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

The PGA Tour has always had the best salary structure, but it doesn't easily lend itself to team sports.

That said, I still think that owners should get pro-rated shares of TV money based upon RS W-L records and playoff success.

You want to do everything possible to make sure that people like Al Davis or the Hunt family never own NFL teams. There's no financial incentive to build anything worthwhile for the fans, which is asinine for an entertainment product you have to pay to attend.

What's the PGA structure? I don't follow golf since it doesn't have many violent collisions.

-King- · 09-01-2014, 05:16 PM

Hootie · 09-01-2014, 05:18 PM

the TV money idea is actually pretty good...

I'd love to see that happen.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 09-01-2014, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

What's the PGA structure? I don't follow golf since it doesn't have many violent collisions.

Almost every tournament has a 36 hole cut. Top 70 players and ties in most events, or if you are within 10 shots of the lead in some.

At the conclusion of the tournament, players are paid based upon order of finish. If you don't make the cut in a regular tournament, you don't make a dime. It doesn't matter if you're Tiger Woods. You still have to cover your own travel expenses and the loop for your caddie.

Guys can still make a comfortable living off of endorsements, but even those contracts are about 40 percent what they were before the real estate bubble burst.

If you wrench your back, you don't make any money that year. If you have a career year and then do nothing for the next half decade, your ass is shipped back to the mini tours.

It's one of the only true meritocracies in sports.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 09-01-2014, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

The PGA Tour has always had the best salary structure, but it doesn't easily lend itself to team sports.

That said, I still think that owners should get pro-rated shares of TV money based upon RS W-L records and playoff success.

You want to do everything possible to make sure that people like Al Davis or the Hunt family never own NFL teams. There's no financial incentive to build anything worthwhile for the fans, which is asinine for an entertainment product you have to pay to attend.

This.

Psyko Tek · 09-01-2014, 08:23 PM

but that would create a lower level of teams, once you start winning you have more money to keep buying more players
or is the salary cap still same and covered by Tv revenue and this is just extra money in owners pockets?

**DaFace** · 09-01-2014, 08:27 PM

I think it would cause a lot of problems between teams to try and move the league forward. Teams with a franchise QB would be pushing for more rules to benefit offenses, for example. It's already happening, and adding money to the issue would just make it stronger.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 09-01-2014, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psyko Tek

but that would create a lower level of teams, once you start winning you have more money to keep buying more players
or is the salary cap still same and covered by Tv revenue and this is just extra money in owners pockets?

Cap stays the same, but the profits the owners make on the team are based upon how good the team is.

If the Chiefs were any other business they would have shuttered their doors thirty years ago. The owners should not be guaranteed eight figure profits each year just because they happen to own an NFL team. Produce a competitive product or get ****ed. Happens with movie studios, video game developers, TV networks, publishers, etc.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 09-01-2014, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaFace

I think it would cause a lot of problems between teams to try and move the league forward. Teams with a franchise QB would be pushing for more rules to benefit offenses, for example. It's already happening, and adding money to the issue would just make it stronger.

The owners should not have the power they do. The commissioner is a goddamned puppet. There should be an independent competition committee of people not affiliated with any NFL team that makes decisions on rules.

CapsLockKey · 09-01-2014, 08:31 PM

I don't see a single owner blatently not trying to win. I guess you can try and make a case for the Colts tanking on purpose, but it's not like Irsay went and took a baseball bat to Mannings neck just do he could draft Luck.

GloucesterChief · 09-01-2014, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Almost every tournament has a 36 hole cut. Top 70 players and ties in most events, or if you are within 10 shots of the lead in some.

At the conclusion of the tournament, players are paid based upon order of finish. If you don't make the cut in a regular tournament, you don't make a dime. It doesn't matter if you're Tiger Woods. You still have to cover your own travel expenses and the loop for your caddie.

Guys can still make a comfortable living off of endorsements, but even those contracts are about 40 percent what they were before the real estate bubble burst.

If you wrench your back, you don't make any money that year. If you have a career year and then do nothing for the next half decade, your ass is shipped back to the mini tours.

It's one of the only true meritocracies in sports.

Tennis the same thing but it really only works for non team sports. Now, head coaches I could see getting this deal. Might make them more aggressive.

GloucesterChief · 09-01-2014, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CapsLockKey

I don't see a single owner blatently not trying to win. I guess you can try and make a case for the Colts tanking on purpose, but it's not like Irsay went and took a baseball bat to Mannings neck just do he could draft Luck.

True it is more a problem in baseball but it seems like something has happen where a lot of the recently horrible teams have gotten a lot better ie Cinci, Pittsburgh, KC, Seattle, and Baltimore.

View Poll Results: Should owners get more money for producing more wins?
Yes, and it should be significant. Reward winning and burn the losers out.	9	27.27%
Yes, but it should be a token for pride purposes. Money doesn't matter to these guys.	5	15.15%
No. It's not necessary. These guys all want to put the best product on the field.	9	27.27%
No. I think that tanking a season is a good thing and more teams should do it.	1	3.03%
I am opinionless on this. I looked in my opinion bag and it's empty.	2	6.06%
I don't think the NFL should keep track of wins and losses. It's all about participation.	7	21.21%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

09-01-2014, 05:07 PM
Rain Man NFL's #1 Ermines Fan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $3298491 VARSITY	Should NFL owners get paid by the win? 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.
Posts: 141,448

09-01-2014, 05:10 PM	#2
'Hamas' Jenkins Now you've pissed me off! Join Date: Jan 2006 Casino cash: $8009572	The PGA Tour has always had the best salary structure, but it doesn't easily lend itself to team sports. That said, I still think that owners should get pro-rated shares of TV money based upon RS W-L records and playoff success. You want to do everything possible to make sure that people like Al Davis or the Hunt family never own NFL teams. There's no financial incentive to build anything worthwhile for the fans, which is asinine for an entertainment product you have to pay to attend. __________________ "When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”--Abraham Lincoln
Posts: 74,826

09-01-2014, 05:16 PM	#5
-King- ▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓ Join Date: Jan 2009 Casino cash: $2465743	No. __________________ 🏁
Posts: 63,884

09-01-2014, 05:18 PM	#6
Hootie Banned Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas Casino cash: $10004900	the TV money idea is actually pretty good... I'd love to see that happen.
Posts: 56,356

09-01-2014, 08:23 PM	#9
Psyko Tek special teams Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Mesa AZ Casino cash: $10015665	but that would create a lower level of teams, once you start winning you have more money to keep buying more players or is the salary cap still same and covered by Tv revenue and this is just extra money in owners pockets? __________________ Psyko Tek The keyboard has been drinking,
Posts: 12,018

09-01-2014, 08:27 PM	#10
DaFace Kind of a mod Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Donkey Land Casino cash: $2006899	I think it would cause a lot of problems between teams to try and move the league forward. Teams with a franchise QB would be pushing for more rules to benefit offenses, for example. It's already happening, and adding money to the issue would just make it stronger.
Posts: 51,792

09-01-2014, 08:31 PM	#13
CapsLockKey Starter Join Date: Feb 2009 Casino cash: $1941445	I don't see a single owner blatently not trying to win. I guess you can try and make a case for the Colts tanking on purpose, but it's not like Irsay went and took a baseball bat to Mannings neck just do he could draft Luck.
Posts: 879