HawkShack.com

PFT has an article about some people floating the idea of a development league for the NFL.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... al-league/

I think it's an idea that's long overdue.
How might it be structured if you were the decider on how it would work?

I think it should be modeled somewhat like the NHL where there are farm teams, however if the article is correct and there are only 12 teams, the NFL teams would have to share the development teams.

In my world, the players would be protected from poaching from other teams as they develop, but they could be brought up at any time for injury replacement or if they are exceeding expectations at the lower level.
Veterans would also be able to be sent down if they are underperforming or if they are on the bubble and need some playing time as another is brought up. This would mean the introduction of 2 way contracts where they would get their NFL salary when on the NFL roster, but less if sent down.

Anyway, that's a start from me - any other ideas?

There should be a developmental league ( and really that is what the WFL was before), I'm not convinced there needs to be a parent team, and think a true "free agent" league could only help develop and produce players.

I have my doubts, Nanook.

The NCAA is the developmental league now. And it costs the owners who are stuffing money in their pockets at a dizzified rate absoluely nothing.

There was a merger a long time ago that worked ... nothing since has made a dent in increasing revenues ... and that is the bottom line.

Sure, you can toss out ideas about giving some poor QB who lived in a spread office in college a better chance to eventually make it in the NFL ... but how many would be developed at what cost?

How would it be structured to get networks to pay big bucks for broadcasting rights ... you gonna hold a guillotine to their neck and say you won't get NFL rights unless you carry our "minor league" games?

You actually think the owners care about putting out money to "develop" players?

Come on, get real. It's a free ride now. Players are pawns, and always will be, union or not.

Where are the markets for a minor league team? Omaha, Frankfurt, Osaka? An off-year league spread across a half dozen markets in the southern U.S.?

It's far more likely owners would vote to dilute the existing pool of competent players by adding four more teams ... or even eight more teams ... and let the new teams pick from an "expansion" pool with that bunch determined by existing teams ... where existing teams could only "freeze", say, thirty six players. Eight teams could make it a world wide league and include franchises in L.A. and perhaps, Las Vegas

No, existing teams wouldn't like to make that many players available (and their existing contracts would have to be accepted by the new teams) ... but that would bounce up TV revenues to "pay" for their replaceable losses.

So the NFL trots out Troy Vincent, who has been on both union and management teams, to opine about "considering" the idea.

Follow the money, Nanook and Roach ... and look at the bottom line.

Why go up on a high wire without a net when you are the ringmaster.

zoom

The same could be said about "practice players". This isn't a plan to "increase" revenue, it's a plan to "protect" each individuals "brand". Allowing a developmental league, allows teams to not have to sign players from the arena league, the CFL or off the street should someone go down. It also allows for players to get the needed experience, to become viable NFL players, something many 21-24 year olds aren't ready to become from the word go. No problems with not seeing it as a viable option, just pointing out the obvious benefits a developmental league provides.

I am now and have always been 100% in favor of a developmental league. Huge practice squads that play each other in organized games. It would showcase the players with exceptional talents previously overlooked better, would make the players sharper for when they are called up, would give teams a better look at their own and other team's prospects and most importantly give an NFL experience to more of the country than just those living in NFL cities.

As for whether players would be protected by the teams they are attached to or open to being signed by any club, those are CBA issues, I'll defer to the lawyers on that one.

The article suggested a league be located in Texas. It might work out to be self sufficient as the interest in Football is huge there and it would be a relatively short distance between teams to limit travel costs.
They could play the championship in Jerry's house to show the fans what a real NFL team looks like!

Haven't read the article, but I think having the "league" all in one state is lame.

I love the idea of minor league football. There are dozens of markets out there that are thirsting for professional football but are not quite ready for Prime Time, everywhere from Boise to Honolulu to Wichita. I'd love to make a 2 hour drive up to Spokane or 4 hours to Missoula and watch some high quality football during a summer vacation on my way to Yellowstone or Glacier.

But Bird Droppings is exactly right. The NFL already has its developmental league in the form of the NCAA, and it doesn't cost them a penny. Besides, why run the risk of additional lawsuits, especially considering that most of those future plaintiffs will not have the financial security of the multi millionaires now employed by the NFL and be looking for their lottery ticket?

The NCAA isn't a development league.
A development league is where those that might have a future in the NFL AFTER college would learn and refine their craft.
The article emphasizes the QBs and points out many aren't ready for the NFL but if given a chance to develop they could be pretty good.
They also mention expansion to Europe and LA to name 2 places so a pool of more developed players could help keep or even increase parity across the league.

If you use the WFL as an example, Jim Kelly and Steve Young both benefited from playing at at higher level than College and from the European League there are a number of players that probably wouldn't have made it in the NFL if they hadn't had that opportunity.

I think and hope it happens. If, as the article suggests they limit the teams to a single smaller region, the league itself might be largely self sufficient.
If they could do that, it would be a bonus for both teams and fans.

Nanook, the NCAA pays for their BA.

NFL owners will not pay for a masters unless they can make profits off it.

Wow, a couple quarterbacks and a handful of other players?

Ain't worth it.

And Dog has it right. Somehow, sooner or later it will cost 'em money or image (which is money).

The League is not known for benevolence, and you're waving an anti-trust flag if you establish a "developmental league" that any other activity that wants your money objects to.

There are enough ex-wives in Texas as it is.

Do not get them riled.

Ain't gonna happen.

zoom

As my mother still says: 'never in a million years'.

NorthHawk wrote:The NCAA isn't a development league.
A development league is where those that might have a future in the NFL AFTER college would learn and refine their craft.
The article emphasizes the QBs and points out many aren't ready for the NFL but if given a chance to develop they could be pretty good.
They also mention expansion to Europe and LA to name 2 places so a pool of more developed players could help keep or even increase parity across the league.

If you use the WFL as an example, Jim Kelly and Steve Young both benefited from playing at at higher level than College and from the European League there are a number of players that probably wouldn't have made it in the NFL if they hadn't had that opportunity.

I think and hope it happens. If, as the article suggests they limit the teams to a single smaller region, the league itself might be largely self sufficient.
If they could do that, it would be a bonus for both teams and fans.

The issues isn't the benefit to individual players like Kelly and Young. The issue is how does it benefit the individual team? I can't see the Seahawks gaining a competitive advantage over the 49'ers because we were better at developing talent in a minor league. This isn't baseball where players can spend 5-6 years in the minors in a relatively sterile environment waiting for their shot at the Big Show. The average career for an NFL player is 3.5 years. Can you imagine spending a 3rd round draft pick on a player, send him down to a developmental league for a couple of years, and just as coaches feel he's ready for Prime Time, he blows out his knee?

The concept is being discussed at the higher levels - and has been for a few years.
I hope it works out.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/developmen ... mgAbMz_wgt.

NorthHawk wrote:The concept is being discussed at the higher levels - and has been for a few years.
I hope it works out.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/developmen ... mgAbMz_wgt.

Yea, but you're talking about coaches like Tomlin and Fisher. It's not their money. Until these proposals start getting some traction with the guys that have to sign on the bottom line, ie the owners, it's nothing but a bunch of idle talk.

RiverDog wrote:

NorthHawk wrote:The concept is being discussed at the higher levels - and has been for a few years.
I hope it works out.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/developmen ... mgAbMz_wgt.

Yea, but you're talking about coaches like Tomlin and Fisher. It's not their money. Until these proposals start getting some traction with the guys that have to sign on the bottom line, ie the owners, it's nothing but a bunch of idle talk.

It's also being talked about by the NFL Head of Football Operations.
That's getting pretty close to the top of the NFL heap, so it would be odd to send out a trial balloon without it not having been at least informally discussed by Goodell and others.
People in those positions rarely go off script, so there might be a spark of interest in this.
I hope so.

Unless it's a nation wide league, I'm not too thrilled about the prospect of minor league football. I can't get too excited thinking about watching the Waco Centipedes play the El Paso Border Patrol.

The WFL failed because there just wasn't enough viable cities that could support professional football. I mean, how many cities did the NFL expand to after the WFL folded? 4? The AFL worked because there was plenty enough cities (and potential owners) that had wanted be NFL owners but the NFL was too myopic to expand. The NFL had expanded less the 10 years earlier when the old AAL had folded and they absorbed the Cleveland Browns, Baltimore Colts, and I believe the 49ners. The Browns then shocked the NFL by winning the NFL Championship their first couple of years in the league. That is one reason why they were glad the Green Bay Packers won the first two Super Bowls by double digits, can you imagine their embarrassment if the Chiefs and Raiders would have won the first two?? Namath and the Jets winning SBIII might have caused the merger to be happen on the AFL's terms and not the NFL's. in fact, the merger may not have happened at all.

The only two viable WFL teams that I remember were the New Jersey Generals, the team in Philly(I don't remember their name, Stars? Oh and I think the Gamblers were stable. There was no merger, even for the N.Y.Generals because the NFL didn't want Donald Trump to join their fraternity.

I think that is why the NFL tried that international league, they were hoping a few of the franchises would prove to be strong enough to eventually be folded into the parent league.

About 10-15 years ago the CFL was tottering on collapse and who knows, maybe some day many if not all of those CFL teams could be absorbed into the NFL and make it truly an international league. Who knows, maybe the NFL could even adopt some of the CFL's rules such as the 15 yard deep end zone or the mandatory kick off and punt returns??

Seahawks4Ever wrote:The WFL failed because there just wasn't enough viable cities that could support professional football. I mean, how many cities did the NFL expand to after the WFL folded? 4? The AFL worked because there was plenty enough cities (and potential owners) that had wanted be NFL owners but the NFL was too myopic to expand. The NFL had expanded less the 10 years earlier when the old AAL had folded and they absorbed the Cleveland Browns, Baltimore Colts, and I believe the 49ners. The Browns then shocked the NFL by winning the NFL Championship their first couple of years in the league. That is one reason why they were glad the Green Bay Packers won the first two Super Bowls by double digits, can you imagine their embarrassment if the Chiefs and Raiders would have won the first two?? Namath and the Jets winning SBIII might have caused the merger to be happen on the AFL's terms and not the NFL's. in fact, the merger may not have happened at all.

The only two viable WFL teams that I remember were the New Jersey Generals, the team in Philly(I don't remember their name, Stars? Oh and I think the Gamblers were stable. There was no merger, even for the N.Y.Generals because the NFL didn't want Donald Trump to join their fraternity.

I think that is why the NFL tried that international league, they were hoping a few of the franchises would prove to be strong enough to eventually be folded into the parent league.

About 10-15 years ago the CFL was tottering on collapse and who knows, maybe some day many if not all of those CFL teams could be absorbed into the NFL and make it truly an international league. Who knows, maybe the NFL could even adopt some of the CFL's rules such as the 15 yard deep end zone or the mandatory kick off and punt returns??

The NJ Generals were of the USFL. The WFL was a decade earlier. Neither of those leagues were associated with the NFL and indeed were started as direct competition to the NFL. The AFL was formed under a completely different situation. The NFL was not the big dog in American sports as they are now (baseball was) and did not have all of the markets covered as they do today, with the one notable exception being LA.

NFL Europe wasn't created because the NFL wanted a league in which to develop players. It was about developing a market, ie making more money off their product.

My bad, I was referring to the NFL Europe which for all intents and purposes was indeed a "developmental" league for the NFL. I referenced the WFL which was dumb ( I knew better but simply crossed the leagues) I apologize. The point remains that there is validity to a developmental league with or without parent clubs ( though personally I'm for , especially with this FO).

HumanCockroach wrote:My bad, I was referring to the NFL Europe which for all intents and purposes was indeed a "developmental" league for the NFL. I referenced the WFL which was dumb ( I knew better but simply crossed the leagues) I apologize. The point remains that there is validity to a developmental league with or without parent clubs ( though personally I'm for , especially with this FO).

That may have been an incidental benefit of NFL Europe, but the prime reason that NFL Europe was created was to expand the NFL's market. They openly admitted when they folded the league that they were going to change their European strategy to bringing regular season NFL games to that side of the pond, meaning that the original strategy was to develop the market by introducing minor league football.

I really don't see a competitive advantage for individual teams in a developmental league. With the average length of an NFL career being as short as it is, they won't have a very long time to develop new talent, and with the possible exception of the quarterback position, there's not much a minor league can do for a player that the NCAA can't. The risk of injury would also be a factor in their reluctance. Unlike baseball, which in almost all cases assigns all of their draft picks to a minor league team, I can't see NFL teams putting a top draft choice that isn't getting much PT, such as Christine Michael, in a developmental league vs playing a year or two as a backup as he is now where they can manage the risk. And if they have just 8 teams, the parent team will not have hardly any say on the types of things they want a prospect to work on, the types of offense they are to run, ect, as they would if all 32 teams had their own minor league squad.

I don't think anyone is talking top draft choices.
I think it's about developing players that might be of the talent for Practice squads early in their careers, you know the types that show promise, but aren't quite good enough to make an NFL game day roster - and the article emphasizes Quarterback development as a particular need for today.
Players who are on the fringe, but need more playing time - guys who we now see bouncing around the league would benefit from the consistent playing time and better coaching.

It would help the game in my opinion if they could get this going and I hope they do.

Yeah RD, I had a huge brain fart first mentioning the WFL and then naming teams from the USFL. The reason BOTH leagues failed was true though, there just wasn't enough cities that support an entire new league of professional teams on par with NFL or near NFL talent. I believe that both failed leagues, the WFL and the USFL, main idea was to merge with the NFL as the AFL and AAL had. That was especially true of Donald Trump. There was a fair amount of talent that had started in the USFL. Another big impetus, at least from the players that had either jumped to the new leagues (Csonka, Kiick and Warfield come to mind) or signed with them like Jim Kelly and Steve Young did was because the NFL was still a few years away. The NFL finally reached their expansion limit and free agency took away any leverage any new league would or could ever had.

Now, after that mouthful how about they just go back to the old Taxi-Squad system that way other teams can't talent developed by another team instead of the practice squad system they have now. No need to start any new leagues IMHO.

Wouldn't they have to re-open the CBA to make the changes to the Practice Squads and create "Taxi Squads"?
I don't think they would have to do that with a development league.

NorthHawk wrote:I don't think anyone is talking top draft choices.
I think it's about developing players that might be of the talent for Practice squads early in their careers, you know the types that show promise, but aren't quite good enough to make an NFL game day roster - and the article emphasizes Quarterback development as a particular need for today.
Players who are on the fringe, but need more playing time - guys who we now see bouncing around the league would benefit from the consistent playing time and better coaching.

It would help the game in my opinion if they could get this going and I hope they do.

If all they're going to do is put the long shots, ie the lower round draft choices and UDFA's, I don't see how that's going to justify what would have to be some huge operating expenses. Granted, quarterbacks can benefit from such a league, but what about the other 21 positions? Are the operating expenses and the liability risk worth a hand full of players that graduate from such a league?

RiverDog wrote:

NorthHawk wrote:I don't think anyone is talking top draft choices.
I think it's about developing players that might be of the talent for Practice squads early in their careers, you know the types that show promise, but aren't quite good enough to make an NFL game day roster - and the article emphasizes Quarterback development as a particular need for today.
Players who are on the fringe, but need more playing time - guys who we now see bouncing around the league would benefit from the consistent playing time and better coaching.

It would help the game in my opinion if they could get this going and I hope they do.

If all they're going to do is put the long shots, ie the lower round draft choices and UDFA's, I don't see how that's going to justify what would have to be some huge operating expenses. Granted, quarterbacks can benefit from such a league, but what about the other 21 positions? Are the operating expenses and the liability risk worth a hand full of players that graduate from such a league?

They can all benefit from extra play. The article emphasizes QB's, but it's meant to help and would help all players.
Look at a guy like Cameron Wake. He dominates at the NFL level, but if he hadn't got that extra playing time in the CFL, he wouldn't get a chance.
How many others are there that choose not to go to the CFL, or their game doesn't translate there that could make a living or push for a starting role in the NFL?

The article alludes to the Operating expenses would be recovered by TV rights, and during the time frame they suggest the league operate they would have very little competition.

I think something is in the works with one of the top NFL people openly discussing it.

Hell, why stop with Wake? Browner, Warner, Moon etc, etc had to play not in the NFL before getting a shot, how many players like that are missed or simply give up because they didn't make it their first shot? How many times do people talk about it taking receivers 3-4 years ( even high draft choices) before they finally get it? Can anyone say a player like Tate, or Durham or any other number of "fringe" guys couldn't become successful if given a few more seasons to polish their game?

I find it crazy that people believe that the NCAA is the "minor leagues". Cracks me up. Half the colleges run bastardised systems that HURT potential players MORE than help them, and NFL teams have to CORRECT those tendancies before a player can even become compentent much less good. A developmental league ALLOWS teams to develope talent, year round ( or at least have players training year round) to get them where they need to go. How about a guy like Sweezy a converted D tackle switching to guard, or the RB converting to LB ( sorry can't recall his name) is someone seriously going to tell me that a developmental league wouldn't be fantastic for a player like that?

Uggh. Whats the point? No one is going to grasp the value in that idea I guess. More power to them if they get it done, in ten years many people that think it a poor idea, will be applauding the stars that got their first experience and foundation in that league.

HumanCockroach wrote: No one is going to grasp the value in that idea I guess.

Wait, so if I don't repeat myself a thousand times like others in here I'm no one?

c_hawkbob wrote:

HumanCockroach wrote: No one is going to grasp the value in that idea I guess.

Wait, so if I don't repeat myself a thousand times like others in here I'm no one?

LOL. Guess not Nah I just mean there are some that resist change no matter the benefits.

I think QBs are mentioned because there are fewer and fewer College programmes that run Pro style Offenses.
Every year there are highly rated QBs (by the media, anyway) that haven't played much under Center so extra work would help those that show promise, but are inexperienced.

NorthHawk wrote:They can all benefit from extra play. The article emphasizes QB's, but it's meant to help and would help all players.
Look at a guy like Cameron Wake. He dominates at the NFL level, but if he hadn't got that extra playing time in the CFL, he wouldn't get a chance.
How many others are there that choose not to go to the CFL, or their game doesn't translate there that could make a living or push for a starting role in the NFL?

The article alludes to the Operating expenses would be recovered by TV rights, and during the time frame they suggest the league operate they would have very little competition.

I think something is in the works with one of the top NFL people openly discussing it.

If they don't go nation wide, it's hard to imagine that they'd reap a lot of revenue off TV rights.

RiverDog wrote:

NorthHawk wrote:They can all benefit from extra play. The article emphasizes QB's, but it's meant to help and would help all players.
Look at a guy like Cameron Wake. He dominates at the NFL level, but if he hadn't got that extra playing time in the CFL, he wouldn't get a chance.
How many others are there that choose not to go to the CFL, or their game doesn't translate there that could make a living or push for a starting role in the NFL?

The article alludes to the Operating expenses would be recovered by TV rights, and during the time frame they suggest the league operate they would have very little competition.

I think something is in the works with one of the top NFL people openly discussing it.

If they don't go nation wide, it's hard to imagine that they'd reap a lot of revenue off TV rights.

Maybe, maybe not depending on how many people need their Football fix. NFL Network is the obvious choice - maybe ESPN if they run out of midget wrestling re-runs, but it wouldn't require a billion dollar cost from the networks for the rights.

Considering they talked about early in the year, they could be playing prior to the Draft which could bring about a whole new set of discussions and interest.

NorthHawk wrote:Maybe, maybe not depending on how many people need their Football fix. NFL Network is the obvious choice - maybe ESPN if they run out of midget wrestling re-runs, but it wouldn't require a billion dollar cost from the networks for the rights.

Considering they talked about early in the year, they could be playing prior to the Draft which could bring about a whole new set of discussions and interest.

Since they're talking about the Sun Belt states, I would assume they'd play after the college bowls and before the draft. They're also not talking about very many teams, 8 or less. If they don't have a bona fide league, it's going to be a little hard to generate sufficient interest for what would amount to nothing more than a series of college all star games.

We'll see. I wish we could have a robust minor league football conference. I just don't see how it pencils out.

RiverDog wrote:

NorthHawk wrote:They can all benefit from extra play. The article emphasizes QB's, but it's meant to help and would help all players.
Look at a guy like Cameron Wake. He dominates at the NFL level, but if he hadn't got that extra playing time in the CFL, he wouldn't get a chance.
How many others are there that choose not to go to the CFL, or their game doesn't translate there that could make a living or push for a starting role in the NFL?

The article alludes to the Operating expenses would be recovered by TV rights, and during the time frame they suggest the league operate they would have very little competition.

I think something is in the works with one of the top NFL people openly discussing it.

If they don't go nation wide, it's hard to imagine that they'd reap a lot of revenue off TV rights.

They don't need to reap much, enough to cover league costs in more than enough. This doesn't need to generate revenue, it needs to sustain and mitigate costs to the owners. The value lies in what players can be developed, to allow the league to reap the benefits at the NFL level.

( and to be honest, there would be PLENTY of networks chomping at the bit, to get in bed in any way shape or form with the NFL. Even if it is a watered down, bastardised version of it. Even the CFL, Arena, XFL, USFL etc were able to broker decent ifish deals, and those were not backed by the multi billion dollar giant)

HumanCockroach wrote:[They don't need to reap much, enough to cover league costs in more than enough. This doesn't need to generate revenue, it needs to sustain and mitigate costs to the owners. The value lies in what players can be developed, to allow the league to reap the benefits at the NFL level.

( and to be honest, there would be PLENTY of networks chomping at the bit, to get in bed in any way shape or form with the NFL. Even if it is a watered down, bastardised version of it. Even the CFL, Arena, XFL, USFL etc were able to broker decent ifish deals, and those were not backed by the multi billion dollar giant)

OK, so let's assume they get a TV contract that at least comes close to covering their expenses. What about the potential liability that the league would incur by adding another couple hundred players and scores of games each year?

HCR, one huge problem is all of those under class players turning pro after only 1 or 2 years of college because they believe they are ready and aren't. Why keep rewarding these guys for leaving school too early? Oh, and even if they have not run "pro" style offenses in the NCAA they have most definitely been a minor league foot professional football and have been since the 1930's. Believe it or not, before the NCAA limited college football players to 4 years maximum in the 1920's or 1930's college football was way more popular than professional football. Guys like Red Grange played college football for years and years and were huge college football stars. In many cases professional football just couldn't get the very best college football players to quit playing college ball and turn pro.

Seahawks4Ever wrote:HCR, one huge problem is all of those under class players turning pro after only 1 or 2 years of college because they believe they are ready and aren't. Why keep rewarding these guys for leaving school too early? Oh, and even if they have not run "pro" style offenses in the NCAA they have most definitely been a minor league foot professional football and have been since the 1930's. Believe it or not, before the NCAA limited college football players to 4 years maximum in the 1920's or 1930's college football was way more popular than professional football. Guys like Red Grange played college football for years and years and were huge college football stars. In many cases professional football just couldn't get the very best college football players to quit playing college ball and turn pro.

It's not like they would be rewarded with equivalent NFL salaries. I would suspect they would get much less so it might lessen the amount of underage players leaving early if they know the best they can do is make minimal salary, but if they stayed for another year, they might be a higher draft pick and make more in a signing bonus than they would playing in the development league.

Plenty of underclassmen leave as it is, but, to your point, there are even more upper class men that aren't ready either, and really the developmental league isn't something that would be set up as a "reward" to younger players, but a way to get talented players ready to perform in the NFL. Basketball and Baseball have no issues with it, and I just don't see the NFL being unable to balance the cost/ reward of running a developmental league. Players filling that league are not going to be making what counterparts on NFL teams make, just as in the other major sports, those players will be making peanuts in comparison. Why people think that teams with smaller rosters ( baseball and basketball) can effectively limit costs to make it advantageous to them, and the NFL can't I haven't a clue, I'm just expressing what I see as a viable way to develop and insure, players and teams.

Outside of their signing bonus, minor league baseball players get paid peanuts, less than minimum wage, and have to live in guest homes. Russell Wilson was one such player. I don't think player salaries would be a huge expense nor a major motivation for a college player to give up a free ride scholarship.

I'm still waiting for someone to address my main concern, which is the increased liability that adding a couple hundred players and 60-70 games would go over with owners that are already on the hook for billions if these various lawsuits by former players are successful.

RiverDog wrote:Outside of their signing bonus, minor league baseball players get paid peanuts, less than minimum wage, and have to live in guest homes. Russell Wilson was one such player. I don't think player salaries would be a huge expense nor a major motivation for a college player to give up a free ride scholarship.

I'm still waiting for someone to address my main concern, which is the increased liability that adding a couple hundred players and 60-70 games would go over with owners that are already on the hook for billions if these various lawsuits by former players are successful.

That's what insurance is for. All leagues major and minor have the same liabilities but they make it work. There's no reason Football can't.