2008 NFL Spring Meeting

[Vbsiena]

Super important meeting tomorrow for the NFL. The Spring meeting where team owners will have to vote for the possibility of not extending the collective bargaining agreement.

"Owners plan to discuss the state of the CBA, which runs through the 2010 season, on Tuesday. There has been speculation that the owners would vote on whether to extend the four-year agreement, reached in 2006, during Tuesday's session. Such a resolution would have to be supported by 25 of the 32 teams.

The deadline for deciding whether or not to extend the deal is Nov. 8, but talk in league circles is that enough owners are unhappy with the CBA to be willing to take such action much sooner. Some owners believe that by providing players with 60 percent of the revenue, the agreement isn't good for the long-term health of their respective clubs."

Also being discussed are:

» Awarding Super Bowl XLVI, scheduled for Feb. 5, 2012, to one of three finalists: Arizona, Houston, or Indianapolis.
The contenders
Indianapolis -- Seeking first Super Bowl.
Arizona -- Seeking third Super Bowl.
Houston -- Seeking third Supe Bowl.

» Vote on a rule, tabled last March, to prevent a player's hair from covering the nameplate or any part of the numbers on the back or sleeves of his jersey.

» Vote on a rule to increase the game-day active list from 45 to 47 players, plus a third quarterback.

» Vote on a rule to allow each club to dress a designated long-snapper for a game, provided he only participates on point-after and field-goal attempts, and punts.

» Vote to increase the number of players permitted on the year-round roster from 80 to 90, to increase the training-camp roster limit from 80 to 86, and increase the number of players after the first preseason roster reduction from 75 to 80.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story;jsessi...o&confirm=true

[bills_red]

"» Vote on a rule to increase the game-day active list from 45 to 47 players, plus a third quarterback.

» Vote on a rule to allow each club to dress a designated long-snapper for a game, provided he only participates on point-after and field-goal attempts, and punts.

» Vote to increase the number of players permitted on the year-round roster from 80 to 90, to increase the training-camp roster limit from 80 to 86, and increase the number of players after the first preseason roster reduction from 75 to 80."


I'm for all of these.

[EL Guapo]

I like the increase in players instead of teams worrying about being short at some position. You'll also see more things like kickoff specialists.

I think they need more players in camp because without NFL Europe they lose the exemptions.

They need to fix the rookie salaries.

[MMONTERO]

They need to fix the rookie salaries.

That is the big one but it won't get settled this year.

[Matt McGuire]

I agree they need to somehow adopt the NBA's strategy on a set rookie salary, imo for the first 2 rounds.

There isn't a need for salaries in the 3rd and plus, because those are always settled on time.

[PuppyPuncher]

I think the rookie salary will be adressed with the recreation of the CBA.

[Vbsiena]

I think the rookie salary will be adressed with the recreation of the CBA.

We can only hope.

[Blazedestin]

I think another rookie salary alternative would be to have it similar to Franchise/Transition players.

As a very broad working example, #1 overall will make the average of the 1st-5th highest paid in the NFL (In other words, the franchise salary). #2 may make say... 90% of that for their position. #3 may make 100%, but it's of 2-6 instead of 1-5.

It's kinda sloppy there, but it may be craftable into something workable.

[Matt McGuire]

I think another rookie salary alternative would be to have it similar to Franchise/Transition players.

As a very broad working example, #1 overall will make the average of the 1st-5th highest paid in the NFL (In other words, the franchise salary). #2 may make say... 90% of that for their position. #3 may make 100%, but it's of 2-6 instead of 1-5.

It's kinda sloppy there, but it may be craftable into something workable.

The whole debate though is that rookies shouldn't get paid as much as established veterans so I still disagree with that.

$4 Million a year on a 5 year deal is what I think the #1 pick should get.
3.9 for #2
3.8 for #3, etc etc. imo.

[Blazedestin]

The whole debate though is that rookies shouldn't get paid as much as established veterans so I still disagree with that.

$4 Million a year on a 5 year deal is what I think the #1 pick should get.
3.9 for #2
3.8 for #3, etc etc. imo.

Yeah. But the theory goes that rookies selected early are supposed to be high impact, pro-bowl players from the get-go. At least, this is the fan expectations.

And even if they get a 5 year, 20 mil contract, that's still more than most veterans.

[Matt McGuire]

Yeah. But the theory goes that rookies selected early are supposed to be high impact, pro-bowl players from the get-go. At least, this is the fan expectations.

And even if they get a 5 year, 20 mil contract, that's still more than most veterans.

Well it should be more than most...they are a bigger investment than most. I am saying they shouldnt' get paid as much as extremely good, established, franchise type players.

I guess I should have worded it better.

[Blazedestin]

Well it should be more than most...they are a bigger investment than most. I am saying they shouldnt' get paid as much as extremely good, established, franchise type players.

I guess I should have worded it better.

I think though, if a guy winds up being a stellar, high impact rookie at a cheap price, it could break the game. Maybe franchise level contracts, but for only 2 or 3 years?

[Matt McGuire]

I think though, if a guy winds up being a stellar, high impact rookie at a cheap price, it could break the game. Maybe franchise level contracts, but for only 2 or 3 years?

Being a cheap price is why you have a draft....to get inexpensive talent. That's the way it should be. It doesn't hurt the game at all, and the rookies are still making plenty of money.

I personally think 2nd and 3rd round prospects should get a little more but that's me.

But come on man. $57.5M for the #1 pick? That's ridiculous.

4 Million a year is what it should be. Also what this enables is that it makes it easier for teams to trade in the top 5.

Soon in my blog I will address how Matt McGuire would change the Draft and what effects they would have.

[PuppyPuncher]

Look at me. I'm Matt McGuire. I try to fix drafts for people that know more about economics than I do.

Can't wait to read that.

[Blazedestin]

Being a cheap price is why you have a draft....to get inexpensive talent. That's the way it should be. It doesn't hurt the game at all, and the rookies are still making plenty of money.

I personally think 2nd and 3rd round prospects should get a little more but that's me.

But come on man. $57.5M for the #1 pick? That's ridiculous.

4 Million a year is what it should be. Also what this enables is that it makes it easier for teams to trade in the top 5.

Soon in my blog I will address how Matt McGuire would change the Draft and what effects they would have.

I agree for the most part. 11.5 mil/year for an OT is ridiculous. A Franchise tag would be slightly more reasonable, something like 7.5-8 mil for Jake Long. I think to assist teams further if their prospects are busts, they should be 2-3 year contracts. I'm sure Oakland would have jumped on that. And a 3 year, 24 million contract for a LT isn't completely outrageous. Hell, Alan Faneca got that at left guard, and his contract was two years longer (And thus, 16 mil extra dollars).

One of the things I would like to see with the salary cap is a steady, predictable rate of increase. A logical thing to tie it to is the Cost of Living Index. As it becomes more and more expensive to live in the world (Let's face it. You could buy your whole week's groceries for 10 bucks in 1910. Now? You can barely buy food for one day if you're feeding a family.), I think that the salary cap's increase should match it. I know that seems ridiculous to talk about "Feeding families" when we're talking about football salaries, but I think minimum pay at all levels, and the salary cap should rise at an equal rate to the Cost of Living Index. I can't figure out a good reason why it shouldn't.