Interesting article ( NFL )
perkdog
Posts: 30,659 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
CHAUTAUQUA, N.Y.-- NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said it's "ridiculous" to reward untested rookies with lucrative contracts, and wants the issue addressed in contract talks.
Advertisement
"There's something wrong about the system," Goodell said Friday. "The money should go to people who perform."
Goodell referred to Michigan tackle Jake Long's five-year, $57.75 million contract -- with $30 million guaranteed. Long was the first overall draft pick by the Miami Dolphins in April.
"He doesn't have to play a down in the NFL and he already has his money," Goodell said during a question-and-answer period at the end of a weeklong sports symposium at the Chautauqua Institution. "Now, with the economics where they are, the consequences if you don't evaluate that player, you can lose a significant amount of money.
"And that money is not going to players that are performing. It's going to a player that never makes it in the NFL. And I think that's ridiculous."
Goodell said he favors lowering salaries offered to rookies, but allowing a provision for those players to renegotiate their deals after proving themselves on the field.
His statement was greeted by a long round of applause from the estimated crowd of 2,000 inside the amphitheater.
Speaking to reporters before his appearance, Goodell said he plans to open negotiations with the players union on a revamped labor deal this fall. He's listened to concerns from all 32 owners in meetings over the past month.
"We just finished a series of one-on-one meetings with all 32 teams, where I have a better understanding and people have a better understanding of the economics each team is facing," Goodell said. "I think we can identify what it is we need in a negotiation to continue to make the agreement work for the NFL and for the players."
Goodell said the key need is to have the NFL Players' Association appreciate the financial challenges owners face with rising stadium construction costs and a faltering economy. Those issues were not anticipated in the previous collective bargaining agreement, which provided players a 60 percent share of the league's gross revenues.
"As our costs increase outside of player costs, that other 40 percent ... squeezes the margins and just makes it financially unworkable," Goodell said. "There has to be some more recognition of the costs."
League owners, last month, voted unanimously to opt out of the CBA that was signed in spring 2006. The decision to opt out maintains labor peace through 2011, but will result in changes regarding the NFL's salary cap and contract signings if a new deal is not signed by March 2010.
Goodell referred to next March as a deadline, but "not the end deadline," but hoped a deal could be reached by then. If not, teams will enter the following season without a salary cap. While there are concerns some of the NFL's richer teams would use their vast resources to buy up star players, there's also a drawback for players.
Under the new rules, the time for free agency in an uncapped year would rise from four years to six and allow teams to protect one extra player with franchise or transition tags. In addition, the two-year lag would allow many teams to extend the contracts of their most important players, maintaining the continuity that is important to winning teams.
Goodell acknowledged the NFL and its owners failed to foresee the economic issues that would face the league when the last CBA was approved.
"There have been some things that none of us could've envisioned," Goodell said. "You have an economy that's weakening. You have aspects of the deal that we didn't realize that we were going to be building billion-dollar stadiums. ... Things happen. I don't look back at it as a mistake. I look back at it as what do we need to do going forward?"
AP NEWS
The Associated Press News Service
Copyright 2007-2008, The Associated Press, All Rights Reserved
Advertisement
"There's something wrong about the system," Goodell said Friday. "The money should go to people who perform."
Goodell referred to Michigan tackle Jake Long's five-year, $57.75 million contract -- with $30 million guaranteed. Long was the first overall draft pick by the Miami Dolphins in April.
"He doesn't have to play a down in the NFL and he already has his money," Goodell said during a question-and-answer period at the end of a weeklong sports symposium at the Chautauqua Institution. "Now, with the economics where they are, the consequences if you don't evaluate that player, you can lose a significant amount of money.
"And that money is not going to players that are performing. It's going to a player that never makes it in the NFL. And I think that's ridiculous."
Goodell said he favors lowering salaries offered to rookies, but allowing a provision for those players to renegotiate their deals after proving themselves on the field.
His statement was greeted by a long round of applause from the estimated crowd of 2,000 inside the amphitheater.
Speaking to reporters before his appearance, Goodell said he plans to open negotiations with the players union on a revamped labor deal this fall. He's listened to concerns from all 32 owners in meetings over the past month.
"We just finished a series of one-on-one meetings with all 32 teams, where I have a better understanding and people have a better understanding of the economics each team is facing," Goodell said. "I think we can identify what it is we need in a negotiation to continue to make the agreement work for the NFL and for the players."
Goodell said the key need is to have the NFL Players' Association appreciate the financial challenges owners face with rising stadium construction costs and a faltering economy. Those issues were not anticipated in the previous collective bargaining agreement, which provided players a 60 percent share of the league's gross revenues.
"As our costs increase outside of player costs, that other 40 percent ... squeezes the margins and just makes it financially unworkable," Goodell said. "There has to be some more recognition of the costs."
League owners, last month, voted unanimously to opt out of the CBA that was signed in spring 2006. The decision to opt out maintains labor peace through 2011, but will result in changes regarding the NFL's salary cap and contract signings if a new deal is not signed by March 2010.
Goodell referred to next March as a deadline, but "not the end deadline," but hoped a deal could be reached by then. If not, teams will enter the following season without a salary cap. While there are concerns some of the NFL's richer teams would use their vast resources to buy up star players, there's also a drawback for players.
Under the new rules, the time for free agency in an uncapped year would rise from four years to six and allow teams to protect one extra player with franchise or transition tags. In addition, the two-year lag would allow many teams to extend the contracts of their most important players, maintaining the continuity that is important to winning teams.
Goodell acknowledged the NFL and its owners failed to foresee the economic issues that would face the league when the last CBA was approved.
"There have been some things that none of us could've envisioned," Goodell said. "You have an economy that's weakening. You have aspects of the deal that we didn't realize that we were going to be building billion-dollar stadiums. ... Things happen. I don't look back at it as a mistake. I look back at it as what do we need to do going forward?"
AP NEWS
The Associated Press News Service
Copyright 2007-2008, The Associated Press, All Rights Reserved
0
Comments
A few unsigned 1st round picks and we'll see what happens to these over inflated rookie contracts...
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
/s/ JackWESQ
<< <i>The owners should feel lucky that college football is like their farm system at no expense to them. College football players deserve a good signing bonus as they've worked their whole lives to get to that point - if the NFL can't afford the bonuses then quite whining about it, and stop the "madness" of continuous escalating signing bonuses if they can't afford it...and if some college football players holdout then I couldn't care less. >>
You are kidding right? NFL owners should feel "lucky" that the main reason most of these college kids go to school and get an education that many many many more deserving and smarter kids don't have a chance is becuase they play football? They worked their whole lives of 22 long long years doing what? Playing a game? LOL LOL
Nah, way off base. These college kids should feel LUCKY that a NFL team is taking a CHANCE on them. More of these kids bust then make it. They don't deserve huge money until huge dividends are made on the NFL FIELD.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
........
Goodells salary should be about 25k per yr until he proves himself.
<< <i>"Goodell said he favors lowering salaries offered to rookies, but allowing a provision for those players to renegotiate their deals after proving themselves on the field. "
........
Goodells salary should be about 25k per yr until he proves himself. >>
Absolutely ridiculous statement, go read Goodell's bio and how he became NFL President.
Softparade is spot-on with his assessment.
I have e-mailed back and forth with the Director of Player Development regarding an idea of mine to improve the relationship of U.S. colleges and universities and the impact of early entrants to the NFL which hasn't got a positive response from the league, but am not going to give up on the idea with one e-mail.
<< <i>
<< <i>"Goodell said he favors lowering salaries offered to rookies, but allowing a provision for those players to renegotiate their deals after proving themselves on the field. "
........
Goodells salary should be about 25k per yr until he proves himself. >>
Absolutely ridiculous statement, go read Goodell's bio and how he became NFL President.
Softparade is spot-on with his assessment.
I have e-mailed back and forth with the Director of Player Development regarding an idea of mine to improve the relationship of U.S. colleges and universities and the impact of early entrants to the NFL which hasn't got a positive response from the league, but am not going to give up on the idea with one e-mail.[/q
I am aware of how Goodell became NFL Commish. His "rookie" year as President he hauled in around 11.2 million ( if he was a player at the time that would have been good for 24th best in the league.) Goodell thinks he is worth the coin just like Jake Longs agent convinced him he was.
<< <i>
<< <i>The owners should feel lucky that college football is like their farm system at no expense to them. College football players deserve a good signing bonus as they've worked their whole lives to get to that point - if the NFL can't afford the bonuses then quite whining about it, and stop the "madness" of continuous escalating signing bonuses if they can't afford it...and if some college football players holdout then I couldn't care less. >>
You are kidding right? NFL owners should feel "lucky" that the main reason most of these college kids go to school and get an education that many many many more deserving and smarter kids don't have a chance is becuase they play football? They worked their whole lives of 22 long long years doing what? Playing a game? LOL LOL
Nah, way off base. These college kids should feel LUCKY that a NFL team is taking a CHANCE on them. More of these kids bust then make it. They don't deserve huge money until huge dividends are made on the NFL FIELD. >>
As I tried to imply - the "deal" works both ways. The point of the article is the NFL whining about paying out huge signing bonuses to college players. Perhaps you never played football? This isn't baseball or basketball we're talking about, we're talking about football, FOOTBALL, which is a brutal sport and the college players absolutely deserve a large signing bonus for placing their bodies at huge risk for the entertainment of sports fans. We're talking about football. Most of your comments display a lack of understanding of the game and the situation, and your basic premise is too naive to even bother with a response. We're talking about football.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>Stevek, how do you define "good signing bonuses"? Millions of dollars is ridiculous for players that have not proven themselves at the NFL level. Just look how much money has been wasted on high draft picks. This money could have gone to more established players. Goodell is right on the money. >>
Are the college player signing bonuses too high now? Yes, in my opinion they are, but that doesn't mean they should be drastically reduced, and frankly they won't be drastically reduced.
Do you think these NFL owners got rich by being stuipid? Come on now, in any business there is sometimes wasted money on employees. Let's take an example of hiring two sales employees (sales being a high turnover position) at say $35,000 each and they're with the company for a year. One rep turns out to be basically a loser and the company loses a lot of money on that rep in paid salary and expenses, but the other rep turns out to be a winner and the company with that rep's sales, pays him, pays for the losses from the losing rep, and makes an overall profit.
The NFL is the same...for every 20 million dollar signing bonus loser from college, there are always some later round winners who received "much smaller" signing bonuses - so like the sales rep example, obviously the NFL is doing quite well and their revenue and profit structure is outstanding. And of course a number of the college high signing bonus players do perform well in the NFL.
Would college football players go out and play without that dream of a high signing bonus after college? Well sure they would for a variety of reasons, because before signing bonuses became so high, even in the 1930's and thereabouts, college football was still very popular. But don't forget there is stiff competition now with the best athletes for other sports where they can make money...baseball, basketball and other sports as well such as track.
The NFL wants to put the best possible product on the field, for the maximum entertainment of their fans, and of course colleges want a winning football program as well because of revenue generated and colleges can do that successfully in football by pointing out the signing bonuses and salaries available in the NFL - it's all interconnected. There's other factors as well involved, but I'm strictly analyzing it from a signing bonus perspective.
And where Goodell's "argument" is basically flawed is that NFL players are already being paid quite well - No player in the NFL is exactly having to live in a trailer park. So...perhaps the college signing bonuses could be reduced but it would not, repeat, would not be any significant reduction if any reduction at all, and the signing bonuses will likely stay the same or even continue to escalate depending on economic factors and league revenue.
The chances are almost 100% that Gdodell's comments here will be ignored and forgotten. Why "fix" the NFL if it isn't broken?