I voted for no, and here’s why: alternate football leagues.

Players, particularly first-round picks, simply wouldn’t agree to play in the NFL for that type of money. Mark Cuban’s start-up league could pay them more. It’s exactly what the USFL did back in the ‘80s – poached big-name collegians to boost the league’s popularity.

You’d be looking at a situation where the top 25-30 players every year would seriously consider playing in another league on shorter-term deals that paid more. They can come back whenever they want, and the NFL couldn’t force them not to, because they’d ultimately be losing out on the best talent.

The lowness of your dollar figures is the only reason I voted no – there is no way anything that radical would ever happen. I like the by-round structure to the idea, but I think a better way would be to do it by pick tiers, particularly at the top of the draft – that’s closer to the “best of both worlds”. Top 10, 10-20, 20-30, etc.

To be completely honest, I’d love to see something like this happen – it would certainly be incredibly beneficial from a franchise standpoint. But it’s just too ridiculously radical to ever, ever come anywhere close to becoming a reality. There are ideas to work with, though – the earlier RFA, finding ways to protect re-building teams from gambling their investments, etc.

“The lowness of your dollar figures is the only reason I voted no”

Same here…WAY too low…and a #1 pick has to make more than the 32nd pick.

Side note, how do you quote posts in your replies?

I don’t see a lot of rookies jumping ship from the team that drafted them. First, teams will negotiate with productive rookies towards the end of the season. That would keep the best rookies from ever becoming RFAs, and those rookies would be the ones getting the big paydays. Second, the cost in terms of draft picks would ensure only the elite rookies were ever poached.

One and two year deals? That’s not happening, nor should it. Even the teams wouldn’t want that.

How fair would it be if Matt Ryan was in line for a new deal this offseason and some team like the Redskins gave him a ton of money, more than ATL could give him, for example?

There would be way too much player turnover and changing of rosters. Besides the obvious impact on teams from year to year and the need to constantly find replacements, there would also be a loss of connectivity between the teams and the fans. If a guy like Matt Ryan, who Falcons fans are in love with, was to up and sign with the ‘Skins, not only would the team need to replace him, but the fans who fell in love with his play and him as a person would already have lost him. How can teams build that relationship with the fans if there is no constants from year to year? Plus, players switching systems over and over isn’t the best for their development or play either.

The problem isn’t the length of contracts, it’s the size of the contracts in the top 10-15 of the draft. Stafford shouldn’t be making $40M+ guaranteed, but who’s to say Eric Wood shouldn’t be making an average of about $2M per season? That’s pretty fair if you ask me. If the top half of the draft would have lower salaries, more in line with what the rest of the draft would look like, there’d also be more money available for vets who have earned it.

Considering that the average NFL career lasts about 3 1/2 years, it doesn’t bother me that a rookie’s salary is not necessarily commensurate with his production. If you think about it, the NFL draft is not a risky proposition: what other business gets to hand pick the talent it wants before negotiations begin? The onus is on the front office to make good picks; if they don’t, they lose money. Simple. Players should try and get as much money as possible because owners are going to try and keep as much as they can. And at the end of the day the players are the ones whose bodies are on the lines; their pay ought to reflect that fact.

I mean I like the idea, I really do, but it’s never going to happen, the NFLPA wouldn’t let that happen. I do however see the possibility of a rookie cap being put in place, simular to what the NHL has, however with much larger numbers. Right now an NHL rookie cannot make more then 950K in his first 3 years (thats base salery, they can make much more with bonuses). I see a 4M cap (probably with bonuses) for the first 3 years of a rookie’s contract as a good number to start with for the NFL to start with.

I also think that it would be a good idea to put a max amount of years that a rookie contract would be alloud to have. In the NHL it’s 3 years, I say thats also a good number for the NFL as well. After the end of that contract I’d say all players would become restricted free agents. Now to countre the short initial contracts, I’d say that if a team resigns a rookie to an RFA 1 year tendre for his forth year, that player will remain an RFA for his fifth year, but with a garanteed 30% raise if the teams tendres him to an RFA 1 year contract for both year. Now the other option would be that instead of signing your player to an RFA 1 year tendre at the end of his third year, you sign him to a longer contract (2 year minimum) at which point the player will no longer be considered a restricted free agent.

So in short, a 3 year, 4M max per year rookie contract cap. At which point every rookie becomes a RFA. the team can chose to give you a big contract, negating any future RFA status, or sign you to a 1 year RFA tendre, at the end of which they can sign him to a second 1 year RFA tendre with a salery raise of 30% or a long term contract. Meaning that a rookie will be garanteed to be a UFA by his fifth year at the most.

Yes I know that I’m steal the vast majority of this on the NHL’s rookie contract principals, but I honestly think that this would work a lot better then your proposed rookie cap system and it’s somethine that both the NFL and the NFLPA could probably live with.

because i think there are too many vested interests for it to work.

i do think however a rookie salery cap is a good idea for everyone exept maybe the first few picks.

the idea i had, was to have standard contracts in place before the draft. Say the average of the top ten pros at a position for a first rounder, next ten pros for the second round etc. and a standard three or four years.

The numbers and method are not important,what is important is the contract does not need to be negotiated so there is no need to hold out or mess around before the season to the benefit of everyone.

I think a more workable plan would be this:

All contract lengths are determined by round selected. That means the higher the round, the more years you automatically sign with the team, the lower the round, the faster into RFA and FA you go. Here is how I would set it up.

Round 1- 6 years, last 2 voidable based on performance against standards set forth in contract between team and player.

Round 2- 5 years, last 1 voidable based on performance against standards set forth in contract between team and player.

Round 3 and 4- 4 years, no voidable time in contract, but immediate FA for player after completing their time, teams also get the option to renegotiate to a long term deal starting in year 3.

Round 5 and 6- 3 years, immeidate RFA as soon as contract is complete teams can negotiate before completetion of third year on a new long term deal.

Round 7- 2 years, RFA immediately after second year, can be tagged twice till 4th year reached, but contract increases by 30% year to year, if team lets the player walk, player goes to waivers immediately.

As for the money aspect of the situation, the NFL should take a page from the NBA which slots the money based on where you were drafted in each round, so a guy who is taken 1st overall makes 20% more than the dude taken 10th, who makes 15% more than the guy taken with the 20th pick, and so on. When you get into the 2nd and 3rd rounds, all you do is take a value of say 10K from each contract sliding down till the last guy taken in the draft is given the league minimum salary for a player with no accrued playing time.

Why not just have a system like the NHL, with a three year rookie contract (or whatever it is) and then go at it?

I actually think that the current contracts that rookies get are very fair outside of the first 3-5 picks of the draft. If the number one pick were making what the 4th or 5th pick gets and the numbers declined from there, I don’t think anybody would complain. I think the problem lies entirely in what the first few picks make.

This would be a take it or leave it provision for rookies. Taking the deal would amount to poorly paid (by current rookie wage standards) internships for the guys at the top of the draft. For those taken in later rounds there would be a certainty and likely not much less money than they currently get. Leaving the deal would mean entering the rookie pool the next year, at the lowest paid level. There would be no instant windfalls for rookies. Ever.

That’s why I can’t get behind the above statement. An internship only works because it’s the first step in the process of securing gainful employment for 20 or 30 years. NFL careers are drastically shorter. The guaranteed money has to be there and it has to be enough to take into account the fact that a football player assumes a much larger risk than most ways of earning a paycheck.

The figures were way too low. I like that the NBA assigns how much a player is going to make when they are drafted. Those contracts are 4 year contracts that are guaranteed. Here’s how it works:
-It’s a two year contract with team options for the third and fourth years
-After the 4th year, a team may extend a qualifying offer to the player and have right of first refusal over any contract signed. Meaning if the drafting team matches the offer, the player stays with that team much like RFA tenders.
-No signing bonus but playing incentives are allowed, not to exceed 120% of rookie scale contract
-The rookie salary is determined during collective bargaining (as far as I can tell). Each salary is a percentage more moving up for the league minimum to the top overall pick. Each successive year, including the option and qualifying offers, the player recieves a percentage increase over the year before. The lower you were drafted, the higher the percentage so that you have the opportunity to make up the ground on the top pick if you perform well enough to be kept on the roster.

In the NFL this would be similar to the way contracts are structured now, but without the guarantees. We’ll leave guaranteed contracts for a different day. Players would be slotted into a specific amount to start, the last few years are team option years so they don’t get saddled with bad players but the players are guaranteed good salaries if they are still on the team. It’s a win-win. Players who perform stay on the team. Players who don’t, leave. The reason the NBA is having problems with it is because European teams, not bound by the NBA bargaining, can pay young players a lot of money. Much more than the maximum rookie salary. Pro Football does not have a similar league competing so as long as the numbers were reasonably high, you wouldn’t have a problem. The number one draft pick in the NBA makes $3.6M in the first year. The number 30 draft pick gets paid $710k. If he gets an offer from a Spanish team for twice that, he will play there.