Football Should NFL owners get paid by the win? - Page 2

**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, 08:35 PM

It's not pulling a Rachel Phelps, but being a Donald Sterling (as an owner, not a human being) for 25+ years that must be prevented. Sterling didn't give a rat **** if his team won or not because he made hundreds of millions of dollars just by owning an NBA team.

That should never happen.

**cdcox** · 09-01-2014, 08:36 PM

Yes.

First 50% of league revenues is split evenly between all teams, for 1.56% per team.

Other 50% of revenue is split between playoff teams as follows.

Super Bowl Champ 12% bonus

Super Bowl Loser 8% bonus

Conference Champ losers 2X5% bonus

Division round losers 4x3% bonus bonus

Wild Card losers 4x2% bonus

I don't really care about rewarding 8 wins vs 2 wins. It is about championships.

**cdcox** · 09-01-2014, 08:39 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.

Right now the perception about TV ratings drive rule changes. My scheme would make teams favor rules that would benefit their style of play and likely slow down the rush to fast-break football.

I'd put player salaries on a similar incentive basis at a team level.

Hootie · 09-01-2014, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdcox

Yes.

First 50% of league revenues is split evenly between all teams, for 1.56% per team.

Other 50% of revenue is split between playoff teams as follows.

Super Bowl Champ 12% bonus

Super Bowl Loser 8% bonus

Conference Champ losers 2X5% bonus

Division round losers 4x3% bonus bonus

Wild Card losers 4x2% bonus

I don't really care about rewarding 8 wins vs 2 wins. It is about championships.

THIS. THIS. THIS.

Hootie · 09-01-2014, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdcox

I'd put player salaries on a similar incentive basis at a team level.

NOT THIS.

The last thing I want is to have to listen to all the "me first" receivers and running backs complaining about not getting enough touchdowns to pay their child support.

**cdcox** · 09-01-2014, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

NOT THIS.

The last thing I want is to have to listen to all the "me first" receivers and running backs complaining about not getting enough touchdowns to pay their child support.

Team basis (wins), not individual basis (stats). I'd have to think about the details but players should be incentivized for their team to win. Of course that will put huge pressure not to be the goat.

Hootie · 09-01-2014, 08:46 PM

hmm...

maybe a $5K bonus check to everyone on the active roster for every win?

**Rain Man** · 09-01-2014, 09:57 PM

I don't think you can have a bonus for players that's based on winning. In the era of free agency, it would influence players to go to stronger teams over weaker teams, and would essentially give a stronger team a higher salary cap.

I think you only do it for the owners, and you have to take it out of shared money now so that it hurts the perennially bad teams enough that the owners will sell, while giving every team a notable incentive to "win now".

-King- · 09-01-2014, 10:02 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.

Even in the Colts situation tanking doesn't really make any sense. Who tanked? The GM that was fired? The coach that was fired? The players that were eventually cut?

They just sucked as a team IMO. They weren't necessarily trying to tank.

**cdcox** · 09-01-2014, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

hmm...

maybe a $5K bonus check to everyone on the active roster for every win?

Not nearly enough to make any difference.

Here is what I am thinking. Players negotiate their contract as usual. They get 75% of their pay as normal. The other 25% goes into the playoff qualifier pool that is distributed to players just like the owners pool in proportion to that players take of his team's salary cap.

If a player had a contract of X his compensation for the year would be as follows:

Winning the SB 2.67x
Losing the SB 2.03x
Losing the conference Championship 1.55x
Losing a Division Round Game 1.23x
Losing a WC game 1.07x
Not qualifying for playoffs 0.75x

**Ming the Merciless** · 09-01-2014, 10:12 PM

LOL this is not a serious question, right?

GM maybe

Owner?

LOL

listopencil · 09-01-2014, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

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.

The Chiefs aren't a business. The NFL is a business. It is ridiculously successful and rakes in a shit load of cash.

**cdcox** · 09-01-2014, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I don't think you can have a bonus for players that's based on winning. In the era of free agency, it would influence players to go to stronger teams over weaker teams, and would essentially give a stronger team a higher salary cap.

I'm trying to decide how much this represents a flaw in my system. Lets remember that the total salary cap (before playoff bonuses) will be the same for every team. Let's call the percentage of a player's salary that is performance based "p". If p=0.99, clearly there is a huge incentive for the best players to go to the best teams. But even then it is balanced against the ability to claim a significant portion of a teams cap. If Tom Brady can only claim 3% of a team's cap due to signing other super stars, he probably should go to another team to maximize his income. The expected income of any player is given by:

CAP * (expected value of performance bonus = f(p)) * chances of reaching team goals * fraction of cap allocated to that player

At any given point, players are trading off chances of reaching team goals vs. the fraction of the cap they can claim. Bird in hand vs. bush. For any value of p this trade off is unclear. For high values of "p" this evaluation is very important. For low values of "p" this evaluation isn't important at all. I think there is an optimum value of "p" that makes this evaluation moderately important and maintains the balance between seeking a competitive team and going to a team that can really benefit from your talents. GMs would be hugely important under this model.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I think you only do it for the owners, and you have to take it out of shared money now so that it hurts the perennially bad teams enough that the owners will sell, while giving every team a notable incentive to "win now".

I'm more concerned with weeding out the perennially bad and perpetually mediocre than providing an incentive to "win now". The teams making a profit over the last 30 years should be:

Steelers
Ravens
Pats
Colts
Broncos
Giants
Cowboys
49ers
Packers

Everyone else should be breaking even or losing money.

**Ming the Merciless** · 09-01-2014, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by listopencil

The Chiefs aren't a business.

I would be willing to bet the owner disagrees with you.

I would be willing to bet the GM on down the line disagree with you...

It seems more likely to say that they are both businesses....The Chiefs are more like a "franchise" or independently operated branch or something....

The chiefs are in business to sell tickets / parking and beer, hotdogs and sodas...and make money....

The owner should make as much money as he can, and pay people according to their performance...

Maybe have the GM rake in a bonus for wins, who knows....but I think the owner already knows his business will lessen of the product is bad.

Look at the Chiefs..."operation sell tickets" is happening right here, right now.

**cdcox** · 09-01-2014, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

LOL this is not a serious question, right?

GM maybe

Owner?

LOL

Clearly this is a speculative question about what would make the game better and not something that owners are likely to implement.

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: $3098491 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: 141,615

09-01-2014, 08:35 PM	#16
'Hamas' Jenkins Now you've pissed me off! Join Date: Jan 2006 Casino cash: $7979572	It's not pulling a Rachel Phelps, but being a Donald Sterling (as an owner, not a human being) for 25+ years that must be prevented. Sterling didn't give a rat **** if his team won or not because he made hundreds of millions of dollars just by owning an NBA team. That should never happen. __________________ "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: 74,841

09-01-2014, 08:36 PM	#17
cdcox www.nfl-forecast.com Join Date: Sep 2000 Casino cash: $2231769	Yes. First 50% of league revenues is split evenly between all teams, for 1.56% per team. Other 50% of revenue is split between playoff teams as follows. Super Bowl Champ 12% bonus Super Bowl Loser 8% bonus Conference Champ losers 2X5% bonus Division round losers 4x3% bonus bonus Wild Card losers 4x2% bonus I don't really care about rewarding 8 wins vs 2 wins. It is about championships.
Posts: 45,543

09-01-2014, 08:46 PM	#22
Hootie Banned Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas Casino cash: $10004900	hmm... maybe a $5K bonus check to everyone on the active roster for every win?
Posts: 56,356

09-01-2014, 09:57 PM	#23
Rain Man NFL's #1 Ermines Fan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $3098491 VARSITY	I don't think you can have a bonus for players that's based on winning. In the era of free agency, it would influence players to go to stronger teams over weaker teams, and would essentially give a stronger team a higher salary cap. I think you only do it for the owners, and you have to take it out of shared money now so that it hurts the perennially bad teams enough that the owners will sell, while giving every team a notable incentive to "win now". __________________ I'm putting random letters here as a celebration of free speech: xigrakgrah misorojeq rkemeseit.
Posts: 141,615

09-01-2014, 10:12 PM	#26
Ming the Merciless Emporer of Mongo Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Milky Way Casino cash: $2747556	LOL this is not a serious question, right? GM maybe Owner? LOL __________________ ---- 2018 Adopt-A-Chief : Chris Conley 2017 Adopt-A-Chief : FRANK ZOMBO Click here-->*The Holy Chiefsplanet Lexicon **
Posts: 44,496