January 25, 2011
NFL: the Official League of Non-Major Markets(?)

Yesterday, Mike made an excellent point about what dark clouds the new NBA free agent circus may hold for small-to-mid-market franchises. His conclusion syncs up nicely with something I’ve been thinking about since the end of the Browns season.

The question is this: Is it possible that in a few years, the NFL will be the only sustainable pro sport in non-major markets, i.e. the only one where cities like Cleveland can legitimately hope to compete for a title?

Based on the available evidence, I believe the answer may be ‘yes.’

I’ve considered a few crucial differences between the NBA and NFL in this regard. I’ve ignored Major League Baseball because their system is currently so far out of wack—see: the complete lack of a salary cap—that it hardly seems worth addressing. (Let alone that MLB’s largest problem is that almost no one in contemporary American life wants to watch 162 regular season games that last 3.5+ hours each.)

Unless the parameters change in the new CBA, rookie contracts will be one major determinant of the answer. The current rules dictate that a player drafted in the first half of the first round can be signed to a 6-year contract; players in the second half of the first round to a 5-year contract; and players after the first round to a 4-year contract. (Thanks to Ask the Commish for the details.)

The contrast with the NBA is evident immediately. For first-round picks, the longest contract a team can extend is 4 years, with the latter 2 years both existing as team options. If a contract extension isn’t worked out by the end of the 4th year, the team can put forth a qualifying offer for a 5th year—but that only makes the player a restricted free agent. Further, if the player decides to play out the 5th year, he obtains veto power over any trades, then becomes an unrestricted free agent the following summer. (Thanks to Hoopsworld for the low-down.)

Perhaps counter-intuitively, NBA second round picks gain leverage even faster than their first-round cohorts. The longest contract an NBA team will normally negotiate here is 2-years of nonguaranteed money. However, if a second round pick pans out in a major way, he’s free to test the market as quickly as his sophomore, or at worst, junior season in the league.

The end result of this comparison? Current NFL rules protect their franchises by providing longer guarantees for potential star players than their NBA counterparts.

Consider the following:  In 2010, the St. Louis Rams signed Sam Bradford to a 6-year contract. Meanwhile, LeBron was a Cav for only 7 total seasons: 4 on his rookie contract, another 3 thanks to an extension.

This example is one where simple subtraction simply doesn’t tell the story. Yes, we’re only talking about a net 1 year difference between the Rams’ agreement with Bradford and the Cavs’ two agreements with LeBron. But the difference is continuity. After going 7-9 and barely missing the playoffs in his rookie season, the Rams’ front office knows that Bradford is a franchise player that they have for the next 5 seasons, guaranteed. As we all know too well, the Cavs didn’t have such a long-term safety net. Instead, they allowed themselves to be forced into a series of panic upgrades that were never conducive to a strong, long-term foundation.

The reason was obvious: LeBron’s free agency was always pending, so they had to prove they could win now in order to keep him around. The Rams, meanwhile, have half a decade to build around Bradford.

The contrast carries through the lower branches of each sport’s draft: by the time a second round NFL pick can become a free agent, a second round NBA pick will have had the free agency option two or even three years earlier.

All of this plays into the viability of pro football versus pro basketball in cities like Cleveland. As proven by LeBron and Chris Bosh, young NBA stars are no longer prone to take slightly more money to stay with the franchise that drafted them. Their desire to build “super teams” is hardly surprising, given the (Mesa favorite) fact that only 8 different NBA franchises have won the title in the past 30 years.

But young NFL stars are basically locked into their first franchise for a substantial time period from the starting gun. With a skillful personnel department, NFL teams have the time they need to convince budding stars to stick around via complementary moves. Given the numbers, those players also have less incentive to migrate to specific alternatives than their NBA counterparts anyway; in the same 30 year period, 14 different NFL teams have won the Super Bowl.

These rookie contract considerations aren’t the only elements that empower small-to-mid-market NFL teams. Their ability to “franchise” a player otherwise ready to hit the open market is another powerful tool in the quest for competitive balance.

For the uninitiated, the franchise tag essentially blocks a player at the end of his contract from entering free agency. If he’s hit with an exclusive franchise tag, the player cannot negotiate with other teams, but is compensated by receiving one year’s salary equal to either the average of the top 5 salaries at his position in the current NFL season, or 120% of his previous contract year, whichever is greater. If he’s hit with a non-exclusive franchise tag, the player is compensated by receiving either the average of the top 5 salaries at his position in the previous NFL season, or 120% of his previous contract year, whichever is greater.

However, non-exclusive franchise players also maintain the right to negotiate with other teams. If they sign an offer sheet elsewhere, the original franchise has the right to match the offer, or else refuse it and receive two first-round draft picks from the franchise player’s chosen destination. In comparison to the NBA equivalent, this system is vastly preferable to any franchise unable to maintain a star player. Two first rounders in the NFL draft is a HUGE bounty. By contrast, the best an NBA team can do when a star chooses to go elsewhere is normally a few infinitely less valuable future draft picks and a trade exception. (We can all see how much that trade exception has helped the Cavs this season.)

If all of the above weren’t enough, also consider the prevalence of undrafted NFL free agents or late round picks not only making an NFL roster, but becoming impact players. (Peter King examines this phenomenon briefly in his most recent Monday Morning Quarterback - just scroll down to “The [Super Bowl] match-up is a reward to two organizations that built teams.”) The probability of a second round pick or undrafted NBA free agent having the same kind of effect on a team’s fortune seems to be much rarer—and again, even when it does happen, the team that took a chance on the player in question almost immediately has to work to try to retain his services.

Admittedly, I have no idea what the new NBA and NFL collective bargaining agreements will look like. However, if current rules and current trends largely remain, then I sincerely believe that we are rapidly approaching a time when the NFL is the only legitimate game in town for cities like Cleveland. Here’s hoping I’m dead wrong.

-T

April 22, 2010
Logic In The NFL Draft and Sam Bradford

To give everyone a small break from our coverage of the NBA playoffs, I figured I would write about something that, I anticipate, could overwhelm Game 3 of Cavs-Bulls tonight all around the country and in Cleveland in particular: the fucking NFL Draft.

In general, I think the hype that exists over the NFL is absurd. My Twitter feed blew up on Tuesday when, of all things, the regular season schedule was released. Yes, the schedule is a big deal for the NFL and its teams, but why it is dramatic news for the casual fan I really don’t know. At the moment, I’m locked in a personal, internal debate over what is erroneously more hyped - the NFL Draft or the NFL preseason. I guess I’ll go with the preseason because at least the draft matters. 

During a recent press conference, the Browns confirmed something I’d suspected for a long time: they had spoken to the St. Louis Rams about trading for the #1 pick in the draft and the rights to choose quarterback Sam Bradford. Why was I not surprised by this? Well, because all Mike Holmgren thinks about is QBs. When he falls asleep he dreams about them. When he has sex with his wife, he imagines a barrage of accurately thrown short passes leading a team down the field and into the end zone (I have no evidence to confirm this last statement, sadly). 

In short, Mike Holmgren is a quarterback guy. Naturally, he’s going to want the best QB in the draft - especially if he thinks he’s a franchise player. 

Historically speaking, all of the data on the NFL Draft says that picking in the top ten sucks. Picking a quarterback in the top ten sucks more. As Malcolm Gladwell wrote, nobody in the NFL knows how to pick a quarterback. The skills that are on display in college are not the skills needed to succeed in the pros. Predicting future success based on past success is always somewhat of a crap shoot, but with quarterbacks in the NFL, it’s a crap shoot and a shit show. Even worse, because of the salary structure in the NFL, a team has to commit an incredible amount of money to the first pick in the draft. They have to spend a load of money just to participate in a high risk gamble. More so, as we’ve written about before, football is not a sport in which one player can create a Super Bowl championship. It takes a lot of guys. 

Logically then, it makes absolutely no sense to trade up to draft a quarterback at #1. 

So what do I think the Browns should do in the draft tonight? 

I think they should trade up to draft Sam Bradford. 

Yes, this goes against everything I believe in, e.g. calculated risk and logic-based decision making. I rarely believe in “going with my gut.” Choices made from emotion tend to be misinformed. 

Why then do I think the idea of trading up to get Bradford is a good one? 

I have to admit that I have a great feeling about Bradford’s future as a pro. I have no evidence of this. I never even saw him play in college. I’ve come to this conclusion almost entirely because of how I saw Bradford handle himself while being interviewed after his shoulder was injured in the Fall. I was impressed with his poise, demeanor, and focus. When I looked for a picture of him to throw up at the top of this post, I found nothing “unsavory” after going through the first 5 pages of Google Image Search. There were no party pictures of Sam, bikini-clad photos of his girlfriend, or documents of his having been in a hot tub with four girls (Shout to Matt Leinart. The girl on the far left is a prototype, bro). I haven’t always been a big believer in character translating into winning, but I think my feelings on that subject have evolved over time. To be great, you need to be dedicated (unless you’re Tiger Woods, apparently). This other bullshit distracts you.

Having said that, I’m also a big believer in the importance of throwing accuracy at the quarterback position. Bradford is top tier in this department, according to reports. I also believe that if you put a man like Holmgren in charge of your team, and he sees a quarterback he believes in, you do what you can to go get him. Quarterbacks may not create Super Bowl Rings … but they are critical to getting one. 

So what do I think the Browns will do? 

I think they’ll either draft someone at the #7 spot or trade down. Logic and Tom Heckert will win. Plus, Holmgren will have the added bonus of then being able to pull a quarterback out of the dust in a later round - someone perhaps no one else believes in - and see if he can help make him great. Turning something into nothing is, after all, one of the biggest ego boosts for coaches and player personnel execs. It’s the reason so many bad players get drafted on potential. 

We’ll see what happens around 8 PM tonight. I, for one, will be watching the Cavs.