sbk92
2
- Messages
- 12,134
- Reaction score
- 6
Posted by jellis at 5/16/2011 3:55 PM CDT on truebluefanclub.com
An interesting question for you guys - one that I think I know the answer to, but hey, maybe you'll prove me wrong.
In his Monday Morning Quarterback column, SI.com's Peter King brings up a scenario suggested to him by NBC broadcaster and former Bengals receiver Chris Collinsworth, who is thinking ahead to the "endgame" of this lockout and the legal battle that's going along with it.
Collinsworth's hypothesis, as explained by King, is as follows:
***
"In Brady v. the NFL, the players argue for a new way of doing football business. Longtime players' attorney Jeffrey Kessler would like to see the draft abolished; in fact, as Daniel Kaplan of Sports Business Journal has reported, Kessler would like to see no player-acquisition rules. No draft. Free agency for every unsigned player. What would the NFL look like if every player and every team were allowed to make its own business decisions that would, of course, be in the best interests of each?
Say the TV contracts were abolished and teams could make their own deals. 'If the Cowboys could sell their rights, maybe they'd get $500 million a year, and maybe the Bengals would get $50 [million] ... There'd be nothing to stop Jones, with a monster TV network, from having a $250-million payroll. Similar to baseball, the bottom-feeder NFL teams would struggle. Dallas might have five minimum-salary special-teamers. Cincinnati might have 20, and some might start.
The question is: Would that make the game better?"
***
From the perspective of the owners, there is no way to quarantee what kind of system would be in place following the end of litigation, so this idea of a totally free market may never come to pass.
But say it did, and your Cowboys could afford to buy any player they wanted, just like the New York Yankees in baseball. They would contend for a Super Bowl just about every season, but the parity everyone seems to love about the NFL would be no more.
Would you like that?
An interesting question for you guys - one that I think I know the answer to, but hey, maybe you'll prove me wrong.
In his Monday Morning Quarterback column, SI.com's Peter King brings up a scenario suggested to him by NBC broadcaster and former Bengals receiver Chris Collinsworth, who is thinking ahead to the "endgame" of this lockout and the legal battle that's going along with it.
Collinsworth's hypothesis, as explained by King, is as follows:
***
"In Brady v. the NFL, the players argue for a new way of doing football business. Longtime players' attorney Jeffrey Kessler would like to see the draft abolished; in fact, as Daniel Kaplan of Sports Business Journal has reported, Kessler would like to see no player-acquisition rules. No draft. Free agency for every unsigned player. What would the NFL look like if every player and every team were allowed to make its own business decisions that would, of course, be in the best interests of each?
Say the TV contracts were abolished and teams could make their own deals. 'If the Cowboys could sell their rights, maybe they'd get $500 million a year, and maybe the Bengals would get $50 [million] ... There'd be nothing to stop Jones, with a monster TV network, from having a $250-million payroll. Similar to baseball, the bottom-feeder NFL teams would struggle. Dallas might have five minimum-salary special-teamers. Cincinnati might have 20, and some might start.
The question is: Would that make the game better?"
***
From the perspective of the owners, there is no way to quarantee what kind of system would be in place following the end of litigation, so this idea of a totally free market may never come to pass.
But say it did, and your Cowboys could afford to buy any player they wanted, just like the New York Yankees in baseball. They would contend for a Super Bowl just about every season, but the parity everyone seems to love about the NFL would be no more.
Would you like that?