How to Fix the RB Compensation Issue

[Allen2McVay]

I know I will regret it but I am starting this thread to propose an equitable solution to the current RB compensation issue.

First-off, I do think it is an issue; and, that issue is that RBs are not sufficiently compensated. The reasons are obvious, short-careers, quick decline and quality RBs are often available in later rounds. However, top-RBs are very valuable to their teams’ short-term success.

Now this suggestion does require owners to pay more money but I think that is reasonable. This puts more money in the RB’s pocket, and allows for some salary cap relief. This suggestion has no impact or rule change related to contract length, bonus-$ or guaranteed-$. It applies solely to the salary component of the contract.

The basic idea is that only an initial salary amount (to be agreed upon by the Owners and Union) would count $-for-$ against the cap.

Say $6M (I chose it randomly but it would be negotiated) is that number.

The first $6M would count $6M against the salary cap … dollar-for-dollar.

Any excess would count Fifty-Percent against the cap.

Say a RB’s salary is $14M (picked at random).

The first $6M counts against the cap. The excess of $8M (14-6) counts just 50% against the cap. That is $4M (50% of 8). That would make for a $10M salary-cap-hit (6+4).

This is solely a salary-cap-manipulation. The owner writes a check for $14M; and the player receives $14M.

Signing Bonus, work-out-bonus and guaranteed-$ make the math more complicated but those amounts are not impacted by this 50% suggestion.

I am going to Regret posting this Thread.

 

[Rams43]

I maintain that RB’s ARE compensated fairly.

It’s the good ole Law of Supply and Demand, aka the Free Market.

Same reason that teachers aren’t compensated as well as actors and actresses, etc.

Life isn’t always ‘fair’.

 

[Allen2McVay]

I maintain that RB’s ARE compensated fairly.

It’s the good ole Law of Supply and Demand, aka the Free Market.

Same reason that teachers aren’t compensated as well as actors and actresses, etc.

Life isn’t always ‘fair’.

I also have ideas on how to fix that teachers vs. actors/actresses problem.

I'll put them in the Off Topic Forum ... and add some Boobie pics to lighten the mood.

 

[Psycho_X]

You're assuming owners care about the cap number more than the actual dollar amount they are paying out of their pocket. While a few owners care more about winning and their cap numbers I'd say the majority care more about what is coming out of their pocket vs the return. So I doubt enough of them care about the situation to change it that way.

The first thing the owners need to figure out is the quickly inflating QB cap numbers. If they can come to a solution to limit the effects of that on cap numbers it would probably trickle down to lesser positions. Course we know how trickle down economics doesn't actually work for the little guy so probably still wouldn't help RBs and only make oline and WRs richer but it's still needed imo.

 

[RamFanWA]

..and all this time, I thought it was because, they ain't quarterbacks!

 

[AvengerRam]

I look at this as a basic supply/demand, market value issue.

Right now, the "consumer" (NFL teams), when weighing the options of (1) paying RBs large second contracts, (2) using the franchise tag, or (3) letting the RB go and drafting a new guy, rank the first option at the bottom.

We could simply say, "that's the market" and leave it at that. After all, nobody seems all that concerned that EDGE rushers make more than ILBs, CBs make more than safeties, and LTs make more than other OL. Again, just how the market values the various "products" purchased by the "consumers."

If one wishes to regulate the market (i.e. because the league sees value in talented college players being willing to play the RB position), then it could engage in a market regulation. This could come in the form of a salary cap benefit (as suggested in the OP) or a bump in the franchise number for RBs (making it less favorable for teams to use), by way of examples.

The problem is option 3 will always be tempting. RB is a position for which immediate success is common (unlike QBs, WRs and pass rushers, who often take a year or two to really hit their stride). So, if you can draft an Isiah Pacheco in the 7th round and win a Super Bowl, why pay a RB?

 

[Allen2McVay]

You're assuming owners care about the cap number more than the actual dollar amount they are paying out of their pocket.

Not at all. Just trying to come up with an equitable fix.

See, I'm a Problem Solver

 

[Allen2McVay]

So, if you can draft an Isiah Pacheco in the 7th round and win a Super Bowl, why pay a RB?

Absolutely! 'If You Can'.

The Running Backs selected after the 4th Round in the 2022 Draft were:
Tyler Allgeier
Snoop Connor
Jerome Ford
Kyren Williams
Ty Chandler
Kevin Harris
Tyler Badie
Keaontay Ingram
Trestan Ebner
Britain Brown
and, the afore-mentioned Isiah Pacheco

 

[WestCoastRam]

I kinda think the NIL has moved towards compensating them correctly. Pay the RB in college when they're expending a ton of tread on the tire.

 

[RamDino]

Maybe the player's union can come up with an insurance plan for running backs, so that if they injure themselves within the first 2 years (for example), the owners can get out of the contract because insurance kicks in. Both the owners and players union could pay for it. It is only insurance, after all. I believe some teams already utilize this in some contracts.

 

[Merlin]

The problem is two-fold: short shelf life + supply greater than demand. NFL can't do shit about the short shelf life, because the moment they turn this league into flag football is the moment their game begins its decline into obscurity. Really the only thing they can do is change the rules for rookie contract length for the RB position. Shorten it a year.

If they shorten it more than a year then RB will be more chaotic than it is now and teams may just scrap them and draft wideouts who they then use from the backfield. This is how a free market operates, you can't fix everything. So they need to be smart with any action they take.

Rams thought they were pretty smart back when they paid Gurley. They were rather proud about altruistically helping to reset that market but then they got fucking burned. So it is what it is and honestly I'm not a fan of people crying about what they deserve. What you deserve is what the market is willing to pay you. They're still better off than countless jobs that are more important than what they do, like for example engineers, so cry me a fuckin river.

 

[VegasRam]

They're still better off than countless jobs that are more important than what they do, like for example engineers, so cry me a fuckin river.

Nah - engineers make enough...


...Architects, on the other hand...

 

[Snaz]

RBs can also try playing other positions such as WR or CB and have a longer career. They should know/understand what the market pays. And besides getting paid what they are paid, they should get a financial consultant and invest/save appropriately. I think they teach rookies this stuff now. If they got injured in college and never made it in the NFL then what? They are paid based on market value.

 

[AZRams]

You're assuming owners care about the cap number more than the actual dollar amount they are paying out of their pocket. While a few owners care more about winning and their cap numbers I'd say the majority care more about what is coming out of their pocket vs the return. So I doubt enough of them care about the situation to change it that way.

The first thing the owners need to figure out is the quickly inflating QB cap numbers. If they can come to a solution to limit the effects of that on cap numbers it would probably trickle down to lesser positions. Course we know how trickle down economics doesn't actually work for the little guy so probably still wouldn't help RBs and only make oline and WRs richer but it's still needed imo.

They care about the fact that the ROI on the RBs second-contract is likely to be much lower then expected and less than what they've likely received on the rookie deal.

If you're gonna ask a billionaire to light millions of dollars on fire at least give him an entertaining way to do it rather than having to watch his high-priced RB get injured and begin to be less and less impactful for his team.

 

[AZRams]

Maybe the player's union can come up with an insurance plan for running backs, so that if they injure themselves within the first 2 years (for example), the owners can get out of the contract because insurance kicks in. Both the owners and players union could pay for it. It is only insurance, after all. I believe some teams already utilize this in some contracts.

Given the amount of money at issue I don't know how/who you'd get someone to underwrite such an endeavor. But hell, why am I talking about work on a fan board...?

 

[Snaz]

Incentive based contracts so they get paid when they play, and not when they don't is the solution.
The best ability is availability.

 

[OldSchool]

Will never work IMO

You'll get teams with owners like Kroenke or some others that are super rich paying lower base salaries and giving huge bonuses in order to stack the deck. This to me is a recipe for disaster and will lead to rampant cheating.

 

[El Chapo Jr]

I also have ideas on how to fix that teachers vs. actors/actresses problem.

I'll put them in the Off Topic Forum ... and add some Boobie pics to lighten the mood.

Good way to bust down some walls!

 

[El Chapo Jr]

How about creating a cap limit on QBs? Them getting paid is what typically wrecks a roster. Their salaries are getting crazy in comparison to other positions. Just a suggestion, don't shoot me for it lol

 

[Allen2McVay]

How about creating a cap limit on QBs? Them getting paid is what typically wrecks a roster. Their salaries are getting crazy in comparison to other positions. Just a suggestion, don't shoot me for it lol

If the Franchise Tag is the average of the top-5 contracts at a position, could just make the Franchise Tag (RBs-only) the top-5 RB contracts, plus 50%. Barkley's Tag would move from $10M to $15M.

Although, I still view my original suggestion as Quite Elegant.