Let's Fix Things That May or May Not Be Broken

[McCall]

Draft should be first to worst of the teams that do NOT make the playoffs. The rest should be either worst to best record of playoff teams, or order of elimination, worst to first record for those eliminated at the same time. And the only alternative that would be acceptable to the draft would be money alotted to spend (similar to as it usually is now), but the players can sign for whoever for however much within the pool amount, with the "1st Pick" team (so-to-speak) having the most to spend and the best team having the least. So if the best team had, say, $5 million to spend, the lowest available, they could spread it out amongst many players or give it all to the best player and that'd be their only "pick". Same could go for any team. This is your "budget", basically. Spend it however you want on the new players.

 

Baseball's schedule next year will be 14 games against divisional opponents, 6 games against league opponents, 4 games (I assume 2 games at each stadium) against interleague "rival" and 3 games against each of the other 14, 7 series at home, 7 on the road.

[MJWalker45]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

And let me note that, while various leagues have limited forms of revenue-sharing today, such as pertaining only to ticket sales, or covering only a limited percentage of revenue, what is needed is the pooling of all revenue and the dividing of that revenue equally to all of a league's teams.  That would completely eliminate any alleged justification for a draft or for a salary cap.

In the NFL, since there isn't really a home team radio contract, since all of the league falls under Westwood One, it's easy to have almost complete parity with revenue sharing.  But unless the other big four leagues have something similar than this would be harder to do. Art Modell is the perfect example of this. He gave up all of the radio contracts he made for Cleveland that got him much more money than the rest of the league. But this was after he basically took over Cleveland Stadium and had to take care of that rotten structure because the baseball team wasn't making enough to do it. All that money he lost ended up biting him in the back pocket, partly because he made bad financial deals with the Guardians, and partly because he was too stubborn to ask for help until the Andre Rison signing proved how broke he actually was.  Had he gone the Jerry Jones route of forcing the NFL to get greedy that much sooner, the first iteration of the Cleveland Browns would still be in Cleveland, instead of the team being placed in the league's care for three years.  Even with the revenue sharing, a draft, which now includes a cap within it as well depending on where players get picked, helps keep the league from having to bail out another owner that can't take care of himself while raising the financial status of each team in the league.  It's why the Broncos can be sold for almost $5 billion, while people are trying to say the Glazers should just take $4 billion for Manchester United and walk away. 

1 hour ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

It would be nice if these captains of industry who see the benefit of collectivism in sports didn't work so hard to prevent collectivism in our greater society. They see an obvious benefit to revenue sharing and salary caps/floors in industry -- I bet you could extend that outward and there might be some obvious benefits.

These are the men that as a group would not get rid of the salary caps.  Because keeping raises contained helps their bottom line. But they would limit that to everyone below them, of course. 

[neo_prankster]

18 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

In the NFL, since there isn't really a home team radio contract, since all of the league falls under Westwood One, it's easy to have almost complete parity with revenue sharing.  But unless the other big four leagues have something similar than this would be harder to do. Art Modell is the perfect example of this. He gave up all of the radio contracts he made for Cleveland that got him much more money than the rest of the league. But this was after he basically took over Cleveland Stadium and had to take care of that rotten structure because the baseball team wasn't making enough to do it. All that money he lost ended up biting him in the back pocket, partly because he made bad financial deals with the Guardians, and partly because he was too stubborn to ask for help until the Andre Rison signing proved how broke he actually was.  Had he gone the Jerry Jones route of forcing the NFL to get greedy that much sooner, the first iteration of the Cleveland Browns would still be in Cleveland, instead of the team being placed in the league's care for three years.  Even with the revenue sharing, a draft, which now includes a cap within it as well depending on where players get picked, helps keep the league from having to bail out another owner that can't take care of himself while raising the financial status of each team in the league.  It's why the Broncos can be sold for almost $5 billion, while people are trying to say the Glazers should just take $4 billion for Manchester United and walk away. 

These are the men that as a group would not get rid of the salary caps.  Because keeping raises contained helps their bottom line. But they would limit that to everyone below them, of course. 

 

So basically all that justified Modell moving the Browns to Baltimore in the 90's?

[MJWalker45]

6 minutes ago, neo_prankster said:

 

So basically all that justified Modell moving the Browns to Baltimore in the 90's?

Hell no! That's just why he ended up doing it. I'm a Browns fan and I can't overlook that he had the ability to ask for help from the league, the city and the state and refused to do so because it would mean he had to admit he was running out of money. Baltimore made sure that wouldn't happen but it also meant that when he eventually gets into Canton, there will be more people there to boo his induction than there will be to cheer him in. 

[BBTV]

It's so easy to think that everyone's on a level playing field when you're a fan of teams in the country's biggest market.  

 

Whether the owner is rich or not, the ROI in New York is far greater than the ROI in Pittsburgh, even if just in local ad revenue, radio/tv deals, corporate partners, etc.  The NY team can afford to pay more regardless of the owner's personal wealth.

 

I find it laughable for fans of the Yankees to blame any sports issues on the smaller-market teams.  Walk a mile (or bike a thousand) in someone else's shoes bro.

 

In principle, I'm against the draft or any system that restricts employee earning power and happiness (i.e. the ability to play in whatever city they want), but I also don't want a league with 5 teams in it.

 

*I say this as a fan of major-market teams with high payrolls.

[BBTV]

42 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

In the NFL, since there isn't really a home team radio contract, since all of the league falls under Westwood One,

 

Huh?  Doesn't every NFL team have a local radio partner that pays them tons of money to broadcast their games?

[infrared41]

7 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

Huh?  Doesn't every NFL team have a local radio partner that pays them tons of money to broadcast their games?

 

Yes. Westwood One only has the rights to national radio broadcasts. All the teams have their own local radio deals as well as local TV deals for preseason games. Sirius/XM has the rights to carry local radio broadcasts as part of its NFL package.

[MJWalker45]

7 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

Huh?  Doesn't every NFL team have a local radio partner that pays them tons of money to broadcast their games?

 

2 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

Yes. Westwood One has the rights to national radio broadcasts. All the teams have their own local radio deals and local TV deals for preseason games. Sirius/XM has the rights to carry local radio broadcasts as part of its NFL package.

My mistake. I knew Westwood One had the SiriusXM deal. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

16 minutes ago, BBTV said:

It's so easy to think that everyone's on a level playing field when you're a fan of teams in the country's biggest market.

 

On the assumption that that is directed at me, I'll respond by saying that I am perfectly aware that everyone is not on a level playing field.  The very purpose of revenue sharing would be to provide the level playing field that otherwise does not exist.

 

 

19 minutes ago, BBTV said:

I find it laughable for fans of the Yankees to blame any sports issues on the smaller-market teams.  Walk a mile (or bike a thousand) in someone else's shoes bro.

The blame goes to the richer teams, for not being willing to share revenue with the less rich teams.

 

(And please note that I am no longer a fan of the Yankees.  I retired from that after the 1996 season, when they were good enough to play me out with their first championship in eighteen years.)

 

 

1 hour ago, MJWalker45 said:

In the NFL, since there isn't really a home team radio contract, since all of the league falls under Westwood One, it's easy to have almost complete parity with revenue sharing.  But unless the other big four leagues have something similar than this would be harder to do.

 

It wouldn't be harder.  There is precise accounting of each team's revenue, from local broadcast rights, from ticket sales, from parking, from merchandise sales, and from whatever other sources there are.  Total all that up, and divide by the number of teams in the league.   (And have strict auditing to defend against accounting fraud.)

[MJWalker45]

7 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

It wouldn't be harder.  There is precise accounting of each team's revenue, from local broadcast rights, from ticket sales, from parking, from merchandise sales, and from whatever other sources there are.  Total all that up, and divide by the number of teams in the league.   (And have strict auditing to defend against accounting fraud.)

You mean like what we're dealing with in Washington? 

[mcj882000]

12 hours ago, CDCLT said:

Why would any player ever want to go to the Charlotte Hornets when they could be signed by the Lakers or Warriors? Getting rid of the draft utterly dooms small-market teams. I know this is great for you, being a New York fan and all, but this would basically be certain death for any team not based in a top-10 media market because you'd rob the teams that can't sign big-name free agents (again, not even talking money here, this is strictly a location thing) of their only way to improve.

Wouldn't the real problem here be that every sports league seems to have a handful of teams that nobody (allegedly) wants to willingly play for?

[Discrim]

On 8/17/2022 at 1:36 AM, CDCLT said:

Why would any player ever want to go to the Charlotte Hornets when they could be signed by the Lakers or Warriors?

Roster limits are a thing, you know?  As is the fact that there's only so much playing time to go around.  If both teams' offers are about equal regarding salary, other factors come into play.  If I were coming out of college ball and the Lakers and Hornets were offering contracts that were about equal, I'd likely be heading to Hollywood solely because I'd be likely to get on the court quickly (old LeBron, old man bones Davis, washed up Westbrook who's already hurt...yeah, whatever one's position is, PT will be there for the taking because of the high chances all three of the aforementioned will miss time.)

In any event, somebody mentioned the Packers...they were attracting top talent and winning titles in the pre-draft era, right up there with the Bears and Giants.  I gotta assume Curly Lambeau was one hell of a recruiter back then.

I can't help but think of the contrasts between the NFL's relatively quick acceptance of the draft vs. baseball's resistance to the farm system; the draft, despite being the brainchild of Eagles owner Bert Bell, didn't do a whole lot to actually improve the team, and it wouldn't be until Bell was gone before the Eagles were ever any good; the farm system, by contrast, was a key factor in enabling Branch Rickey to turn the Cardinals from also-rans to consistent contenders.

[OnWis97]

While this appears to have become a bit of a one-topic thread...I have some smaller on-the-field football changes, mostly unpopular.

• Both College and NFL:
  • Pass interference should not be an automatic first down when it's goal-to-go. A team can make three stops inside the 1, get hit with a questionable PI and now the offensive team has four more chances. I'd go half-the-distance and replay down. The automatic first down makes sense during most of a drive (since the PI stopped the offense from getting a first down, in theory) but it feels like it was thoughtlessly carried into the goal-to-go situations where a first down isn't an option.
  • Eliminate the intentional grounding rule. Purdue's QB last week was called for grounding when it looked pretty clear he and the receiver were not in sync on the route. This isn't the first time I've seen a call like this made. I'd eliminate it because 1) You're almost judging what the QB is thinking, 2) There are various/arbitrary times when it's allowed, anyway, 3) Any throw under duress is a risk, so it's weird to outlaw risky behavior, 4) it almost seems like a natural progression in the movement to protect quarterbacks.
• College
  • Adopt the NFL hashmarks. Why have mediocre college kickers trying 25-yard field goals at some ridiculous angle?
• NFL
  • Adopt the college pass interference rule. Spot fouls seem like a way to let Aaron Rodgers unload a 40-yard pass, get a ticky-tack PI call that results in a big play. PI should not be an offensive strategy.
  • Adopt the college rule for when a player is down (i.e., eliminate "down by contact"). It's another judgement call that's just not needed. Down is down.

 

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

35 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Both College and NFL:

• Pass interference should not be an automatic first down when it's goal-to-go. A team can make three stops inside the 1, get hit with a questionable PI and now the offensive team has four more chances.

 

36 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Spot fouls seem like a way to let Aaron Rodgers unload a 40-yard pass, get a ticky-tack PI call that results in a big play.

 

I sense a disturbing pattern in the framing.  If the defensive team doesn't want to be flagged for pass interference, then the DB should not touch the receiver.  You say that pass interference should not be an offensive strategy; but even worse would be its use as a defensive strategy, which your suggestions would invite.

 

On pass interference, a good rules adjustment would be the abolition of offensive pass interference.  The very concept of offensive pass interference is ridiculous, as it's the offence's damn ball.  The DB and the receiver are not equals; the rules should explicitly state that the receiver is allowed to make physical contact with the defender in ways that the defender is not allowed to do with the receiver.

 

[leopard88]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

On pass interference, a good rules adjustment would be the abolition of offensive pass interference.  The very concept of offensive pass interference is ridiculous, as it's the offence's damn ball.  The DB and the receiver are not equals; the rules should explicitly state that the receiver is allowed to make physical contact with the defender in ways that the defender is not allowed to do with the receiver.

 

 

What?!?!?!

 

The offense may throw the ball, but once it's in the air, everyone has an equal right to catch it.  That's part of the risk/reward equation of passing the ball.  Under your rule, someone built like Rob Gronkowski could just shove a defender to the ground and make a catch unimpeded on just about every play.  That's ridiculous.

 

Out of curiosity, would you apply the same rule to basketball?  Could an offensive player just shove players out of the way on the way to the basket since it's his damn ball?

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

23 minutes ago, leopard88 said:

Under your rule, someone built like Rob Gronkowski could just shove a defender to the ground and make a catch unimpeded on just about every play.  That's ridiculous.

 

No, he couldn't.  That sort of thing could still be penalised under unnecessary roughness. What I am saying is that, when a pass is in the air, the receiver should be able to use his arms to get in front of the defensive back, or to push off the DB for lift, or to initiate contact in ways that would be illegal for the DB to do to the receiver.  None of this "equal right" nonsense.

 

 

26 minutes ago, leopard88 said:

Out of curiosity, would you apply the same rule to basketball?  Could an offensive player just shove players out of the way on the way to the basket since it's his damn ball?

 

I would legalise the throwing of elbows. Defenders who don't want to get their jaws broken can avoid getting that close to the guy with the ball.

 

[dont care]

2 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

 

I sense a disturbing pattern in the framing.  If the defensive team doesn't want to be flagged for pass interference, then the DB should not touch the receiver.  You say that pass interference should not be an offensive strategy; but even worse would be its use as a defensive strategy, which your suggestions would invite.

 

On pass interference, a good rules adjustment would be the abolition of offensive pass interference.  The very concept of offensive pass interference is ridiculous, as it's the offence's damn ball.  The DB and the receiver are not equals; the rules should explicitly state that the receiver is allowed to make physical contact with the defender in ways that the defender is not allowed to do with the receiver.

 

I don’t agree with this. Once the ball is in the air it’s no one’s ball and everyone on the field has an equal right to it

[leopard88]

34 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

I would legalise the throwing of elbows. Defenders who don't want to get their jaws broken can avoid getting that close to the guy with the ball.

 

 

That would have changed my game completely.

[goalieboy82]

one thing i can think of off the top is get rid long stadium leases (see Tampa Bay Rays).  

[goalieboy82]

3 minutes ago, goalieboy82 said:

one thing i can think of off the top is get rid long stadium leases (see Tampa Bay Rays).  

unless you are a team like the Yankees since they wont be moving any time soon to New Jersey: