Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

18 Aug 2011

Terrelle Pryor Declared Eligible For Supplemental Draft

The NFL, which had postponed it's supplemental draft while they decided what to do about Terrelle Pryor, has ruled that Pryor will be eligible to be selected. However, they have decided to uphold the NCAA's punishment for Pryor, so he will be suspended for the first five games of the NFL season. The draft was rescheduled for Monday, August 22nd.

Posted by: Rivers McCown on 18 Aug 2011

79 comments, Last at 22 Aug 2011, 9:57am by moe


by Temo :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 10:31am

However, they have decided to uphold the NCAA's punishment for Pryor, so he will be suspended for the first five games of the NFL season.

Ok, so it's honestly not a big punishment, especially for a QB(ish) who isn't going to training camp.

But it's still bullshit. C'mon, Goodell.

by drobviousso :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 10:41am

What a ticky tacky move. Are they going to ask to see his high schools "permanent record" too?

by Aaron Brooks' Good Twin (not verified) :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:44pm

Is Roger Goodell actually that much of a petty cunt, or is it just a really good act?

by Marko :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 4:56pm

Who knew that Aaron Brooks and James Harrison were twins?

by Aaron Brooks' Good Twin (not verified) :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 6:09pm

Cromartie, but he forgot their names.

by Karl Cuba :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 10:36am

I'd spend a fifth on Prior if he agreed to give receiver a try, great, size good speed and he was a pretty good basketball player.

by Nathan :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 12:40pm

Pryor doesn't seem to have the quickness of Vick or Dixon or Josh Johnson. I think you'd end up with Matt Jones 2.0.

by Karl Cuba :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 12:50pm

Didn't Jones have a drug problem? I'm pretty sure that wouldn't have helped his development as a reciever.

by Nathan :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 1:08pm

I'm sure it didn't help. But what I always saw in Jones was a guy with great size and top end speed but didn't have the acceleration to ever really get there before it was too late. He was like a car that was geared all wrong.

by Karl Cuba :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:34pm

I would point out that I said I'd spend a fifth rounder on him, not a first like the Jags did with Jones. It's a punt I'd take if I thought he fit the scheme and I could stash him on the practice squad for a year.

by foobarfoofoo (not verified) :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 4:38pm

The limiting factor is not only the draft pick you spend but also the roster spot you use/waste on a guy. Even if he is off the active roster for five weeks plus the team gets an exemption (which I doubt based on how the NFL treated him so far), you still need a spot for a guy who gives little to no value to the team this season (because he is only valuable as a QB and probably wildcat/wishbone/flexbone gimmick player).

The only thing that helps Pryor is that the NFL got rid of the emergency qb rule (which may even hurt because teams will use the additional active spot on a non-QB)

by foobarfoofoo (not verified) :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 4:40pm

Missed your practice squad comment ... any other team can claim other teams' ps players at any time, so that is a good chance you wasted your draft choice completely. AKA: not spend a supplemental draft choice on him but try to nab him as a RFA. Or put him on the roster. Or IR/NFI whatsoever

by FrontRunningPhinsFan :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 1:20pm

Probably why he ran such a fast 40.

by Aaron Brooks' Good Twin (not verified) :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:45pm

Have you ever seen anyone catch Pryor from behind?

by Nathan :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:58pm


I also just don't see the quickness anywhere in that video that makes me think he could get in and out of breaks at an NFL WR level. Just my opinion.

by Anonymous(not that one) (not verified) :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 10:39am


by Temo :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 10:51am

@ThomasGower Pryor suspension designed to avoid Kosar-style strategic behavior, but that doesn't mean I like Roger's discipline methods.

That's an interesting take.

by CBPodge :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:19pm

Yes, because Pryor obviously spent the last three years taking benefits and then not declaring for the draft this year so he could skip the normal draft, and the chance to have a full training camp, and almost certainly be a higher pick and get more money just so that he could get in the supplemental draft.

Wait, what?

So will Reggie Bush be stripped of all his Superbowl, given that the NCAA has stripped USC of its titles because he was ineligible. And given that he was ineligible for the Superbowl, because he was ineligible for USC (by this Pryor logic), the Saints should be stripped of their Superbowl.

Make it so Roger. No?

by MilkmanDanimal :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 11:18am

He made "made decisions that undermine the integrity of the eligibility rules for the NFL draft." Really? That's the criteria now?

I can only assume a lot of U of Miami alumni will be suspended by Goodell once that investigation continues.

by sjt (not verified) :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:48pm

My thoughts exactly. If there is any consistency I would expect Goodell to call up the Pats and tell them their NT is suspended. Then inform Chicago that Hester won't be returning any kicks for a while. After that a quick email to Houston telling them that they just lost their best receiver. And so forth.

If there is consistency, that is...

by tuluse :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:06pm

Well the NCAA hasn't suspended them, so no he doesn't have to do that for consistency.

by stephenbawesome :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 11:25am

The move is more or less to protect the NFL Draft as a marketable concept. It's meant to prevent people from changing their mind after the announcement deadline and trying to just jump into the supplemental draft instead.

It'll keep the high profile kids in the April draft and the ratings that come with it.

by Harrison Bergeron (not verified) :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 11:33am

Beyond marketability, the supplemental draft rules are meant to protect the competitive fairness of the NFL draft. Bernie Kosar declared late for the NFL Draft so he could finagle his way to the Browns in the Supplemental Draft, avoiding going to the Vikings in the April draft.

Can you imagine the uproar next spring if Andrew Luck, who will still have a year of eligibility left after this season, didn't declare for the April draft to avoid going to the Bills or the Bengals, instead trying to get to the 49ers in the supplemental draft so he could reunite with Harbaugh? The rule is there for a reason besides just marketability.

by jackgibbs :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:25pm

the only way Luck could avoid the bills/bengals/etc and end up with the 49ers in that scenario is if the bills/bengals/etc trade the rights to their first round pick in the supplemental draft to the 49ers. So they either end up with a king's ransom, or they just draft the guy they want a few months later.

the uproar surrounding kosar was that the vikings made a trade prior to the deadline to declare eligibility in the expectation that kosar would be there. then, the bills capitalized.

by Aaron Brooks' Good Twin (not verified) :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:47pm

If they wanted to protect the NFL draft, they'd get rid of the Supplemental Draft.

But apparently Goodell enjoys looking like a two-faced ass.

by Harrison Bergeron (not verified) :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 11:28am

The NFL is within its right to suspend him, but the suspension should be based on not declaring for the regular NFL draft, not violations of NCAA rules. If they want to prevent players from making "decisions that undermine the integrity" of the NFL draft, suspend him for 4 games, or 8 games, or whatever. Making the suspension 5 games, the same as his NCAA suspension, looks like they're suspending him for taking benefits from a third party, which is legal in the NFL last I checked.

by Southern Philly :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 1:21pm

He tried to avoid a 5 game suspension by entering the draft, I have no problem with the league saying you won't be avoiding the punishment you're trying to escape by coming to us.

This has to kill his already low draft stock, no?

by tuluse :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 1:58pm

This has to kill his already low draft stock, no?

I doubt it. How many teams thinking of drafting him were really counting on those first 5 games?

by Southern Philly :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:04pm

It's not the missing games that's important, it's the missing 5 weeks of practice. You want to take a project player in the 4th or 5th who's going to miss almost a third of the season's practice time?

by tuluse :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:43pm

I think if you are drafting Prior, you are not expecting much this year anyways.

by Southern Philly :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:46pm

In terms of on field performance, no. But you need a project player to get as much practice as possible. Pryor can't get that this season.

by qsilvr2531 :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:06pm

True, but the draft pick that is spent is next year's draft pick. Using a 5th round pick next year on a project who gets a 12 week head start on his development doesn't seem like a bad idea if you think he's got the potential to develop. I don't think this hurts his value for this year much.

If he isn't drafted in the supplemental draft, does he become a free agent?

by Southern Philly :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:22pm

That's a fair point about how it's for next year's draft.

And yes, he'd become a UDFA.

by Marko :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 5:01pm

"Using a 5th round pick next year on a project who gets a 12 week head start on his development doesn't seem like a bad idea if you think he's got the potential to develop."

While that is true, he also would be one year closer to free agency than if he had been drafted next year. Assuming this year he doesn't contribute much, and then it takes him a few years to develop into a solid contributor, the team that drafts him may just be developing him for his next team.

by tuluse :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 5:48pm

I don't think that should be a real concern. Especially if the team that drafts him plans to keep him at QB. Firstly, he'll be restricted still, and secondly, teams keep the players they really want to keep.

by Basilicus :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 12:00pm

Put me on the record as LIKING THE MOVE. I'm as commie, pinko liberal as you'll find these days and even I have to agree that a business has the right to lay individual punishments or rules for certain potential employees who have demonstrated a history of violating the rules (whether or not the rules are silly).

The NFL is also working with a business partner (the NCAA) that is completely vapid but has helped them achieve a great level of success. Obviously, their entire relationship needs to be rewritten to be fairer to college players, but under the rules as they are, this is a largely symbolic gesture that helps both agencies save face. I don't see a problem with that.

by Aaron Brooks' Good Twin (not verified) :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:53pm

The NFL may want to be careful of an appearance of prior restraint of trade and getting too cozy with the NCAA, seeing as SCOTUS considers them a cartel.

by DEW (not verified) :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 12:35pm

So now that he's eligible, how long is it going to be before the first sportswriter declares that Pryor's "unique combination of athleticism and leadership ability will redefine the quarterback position in the NFL" a la Vick, Tebow, and Newton?

by justanothersteve :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 12:53pm

I haven't done an indepth study, but it probably already happened between the time this was announced and the time of your post.

by BaronFoobarstein :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 1:54pm

I'm thinking more like Kordell Stewart. An athletic flop as QB. Jury's still out on the three you mentioned.

by DEW (not verified) :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 6:32pm

Jury's out on the quality of their play...but I was talking (in the sense of making a wiseass, cynical comment) about sportswriter hype, not actual quarterbacking.

by BaronFoobarstein :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 7:54pm

My bad. I commend your wiseassery.

by morganja :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 1:17pm

So, at the same moment that the NCAA is demonstrating for all to see what others have been charging for decades, that it is a corrupt, anti-competitive cartel, Goodell decides to publicly reinforce the powers of the NCAA over athletes by colluding on a punishment that is not allowed in the CBA.

Nice. The NFL absolutely detests the free market.

by tuluse :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:02pm

a punishment that is not allowed in the CBA.

Why not? I'm pretty sure Goodell has basically unlimited power to suspend players.

The NFL absolutely detests the free market.

Yes it does, which is why we have a draft, salary cap, and shared revenue. There was just a pretty big uproar over the whole system, you might have heard about it. At the end everyone decided it was fine that the NFL wasn't a free market and we all prefer it that way.

by morganja :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:23pm

No, he doesn't.

I don't prefer anything that way. It's interesting how many people do reject the free market.

by tuluse :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:42pm

I meant the vast majority of people, not everybody, good point.

by Dean :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:30pm

If you can explain to me how scattering all the best football talent to the four winds and having numerious mediocre leagues makes for a better fan experience than having one league where the elite of the elite can play each other week in/week out, then maybe I'll start paying attention.

Until then, I'll continue to support the free market and continue to reject the utter nonsense that supporting the NFL can somehow be interpreted to mean that I am not a capitalist.

by Jimmy :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 4:12pm

The NFL isn't socialist. It is an example of oligarchical, corrupt capitalism. It uses its size and reach to restrict competition in the marketplace in addition to receiving massive public largesse to maximise profits that are shared between one key irreplaceable part of the work force and a bunch of powerful rich people (plus Green Bay).

What part of that is socialist? Capitalism can be plenty corrupt too.

by morganja :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 5:11pm

Dean, it boggles the mind. It really does. Are you making a joke or are you serious?

by Dean :: Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:06am

The fact that you even have to ask shows just how out of touch with reality you seem to be. To clarify - no, that was not a joke. I hesitate to say this because I suspect that nothing productive will come from this thread, but yes, it is a legitimate question.

by drobviousso :: Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:51am

Innovation, lower cost to consumers,* diversity, more of less-powerful entities which makes regulatory capture and rent seeking more difficult, specialized products for specialized consumers, best practice emergence, increased agency for the labor force. These are fundamental expectations of increased competition. A captitolist should know these things (though maybe not like them. Capitolists may not necessarily be fans of a free market)

*Just because we don't pay directly, don't think we don't pay for the product.

by Dean :: Fri, 08/19/2011 - 10:36am

Sure. The theory is easy. Now back to the real world and answer the original question. Apply this to professional football and explain to me how I'm going to have a better product on my TV?

by drobviousso :: Fri, 08/19/2011 - 1:16pm

"Theory" is all there is to explain the unseen benefits of competition. The seen is easy. I don't know what people want, so I can't predict what will come out.

by morganja :: Fri, 08/19/2011 - 11:10am

If you are serious than this is what economics says about a cartel organized like the NFL. The product will be more expensive, scarcer, lower quality and less innovative than a free market. Economic rents is an economic term that refers to income that comes from control over a market, normally through government or monopoly control. As a rule, the income from economic rents is less than the cost to others so results in a net loss to the economy.
Specifically in the case of professional football, the economic rents are the higher than 'normal' returns on investment that they enjoy. The people who are paying are primarily the fans, through ludicrous ticket prices to scarce football games and having to sit through excessive advertisements on TV, taxpayers through competition for limited NFL franchises causing government financed stadiums, and the thousands of players who never get a chance to play professional football.
It is lower quality because it is a case of Goodell and the owners deciding what every football fan wants to watch instead of football fans choosing from competing leagues what they want to watch and voting with their wallets.
Do you like defense? Do you like offense? Do you want fans celebrating in the endzone? Do you want the two point conversion? Do you want sudden death overtime or equal possessions? Bands from the '60's at the Super Bowl? The NFL is trying to approximate a one size fits all, but since it's take it or leave it, they don't even try that hard.
With separate leagues, fans will get what they want as the leagues differentiate to specific niches. It will be cheaper as fans have a choice.
As far as talent goes, there would be more overall talent. Right now, if you don't get through the enshrined process, NCAA and all their rules, through the NFL scouting process, which honestly isn't that thorough, matched with a good situation, you will never get a chance to display your talents on the field. This also all assumes that players peak at 22 at their skills, which as we all know, doesn't happen. Some players develop physically later. Given plenty of professional leagues to play in, players that don't currently make it through the NFL process can continue to develop their skills and talents on the field entertaining people instead of bagging groceries. A player that just couldn't get it put together at 22 could devote himself to his craft and learn how to utilize his talents.
Anyhow, that is why the free market is better than state capitalism.

by Dean :: Fri, 08/19/2011 - 11:57am

I actually agree with most of what you said.

The fundamental disagreement I have is the idea that more leagues and more teams would somehow magically produce more overall talent. That idea just completely flies in the face of reality to me.

First, we saw with the overexpansion of the NHL in the 90s that adding a bunch of new teams didn't somehow produce better players. Instead, it produced a dull, watered down game where players who didn't have the necessary skill mucked around and made things so boring the league almost went under.

Second, while I do agree that not everyone matures at 22, there ARE still other avenues for players to continue to try to develop. Canada, Arena Football, etc. Player personnel departments are always scouting these venues already, and these players DO get opportunities to succeed in the NFL. Most turn out to be nothing more than Gizmo Williams, but every once in a blue moon, you get a Joe Thiesmann or a Warren Moon or a Cameron Wake or a Kurt Warner.

The idea, though, that there is enough talent in these late bloomers to make not even additional teams but entire additional leagues, well, I just don't see it. Again, this just flies in the face of reality to me.

We live in an imperfect world. On the one hand, yes, we have a one-size-fits-all league. But I think it's absurd to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. One-size-fits-all is a small price to pay to see the elite playing the elite. I want to see Osi Uminyora lining up against Winston Justice, not King Dunlap. OK, that's a really bad example. :) But yet that would be the rule, not the exception in your multi-league vision and that, to me, simply isn't worth it.

by morganja :: Fri, 08/19/2011 - 2:04pm

If people want to see the best against the best, someone will figure out how to make that happen and give people what they want, most likely by creating a top tier league that pays the best players the most money and charge appropriately for it. If people want competitive balance, they can have that too. If they want a crappy league in which one team dominates, as many seem to mysteriously desire, they can get that cheap. It's about offering choices and letting people decide for themselves.
The question is should we as football consumers be forced into one choice? Should we have to pay what we have to pay the NFL to be a fan of professional football? Should thousands of potential professional football players be forced to give up their preferred career? Should taxpayers be coerced into funding stadiums for NFL teams?
That is the other side of the equation. We can ask is it worth it, maybe it is, maybe it isn't to us, but the question is who decides. I think that people should be able to decide for themselves. Thanks for bringing the conversation back into the realm of civility.

by Dean :: Fri, 08/19/2011 - 3:17pm

I would counter that the people have already decided. There wasn't some intervention in the marketplace which prevented the WFL, USFL, XFL, etc from competing with the NFL. The consumers voted with their wallets that the NFL was the superior product. Equally important, they voted with their wallets that they WILL support minor-league football to a limited extent, when that product markets itself as a niche rather than as a direct (major league, if you will) competitor to the NFL.

It's an interesting question of brand loyalty. I suspect, but wouldn't pretend to try to prove, that most fans don't care about the NFL as an entity. Rather, I suspect they care that they're seeing the best against the best, and the NFL is the vehicle that provides it. I would certainly count myself amongst "most fans" in that scenario.

As for "thousands of potential professional football players be forced to give up their preferred career?" - they're not. They're simply not good enough to be elite. To me, that's the free market at work. But that doesn't mean they can't play semi-pro, Arena, Canada, etc. I certainly don't believe anyone is "entitled" to be paid as elite when they're not, but I'll gladly support less than elite players plying their trade in the minor leagues. I dont' see where I would make the economic choice to spend entertainment dollars in a league where one or two stars beat up on a bunch of guys who love the game but were backups on their college teams.

The music industry is an interesting parallel. The supply of musicians who want to be big stars vastly exceeds the demand, giving the industry the opportunity to pick and choose those which best meet their needs. If you don't "make it" as a star, that doesn't mean you have to stop playing music. The world is full of bar bands who love what they do. Some make a living at it, some supplement their income, and some simply play in their basements for the love of playing. We can't all be rock stars, but that doesn't mean we can't play music. Likewise, football players can't all be millionaires, but they can still play.

I guess I don't beleive we've been forced into a choice. I think we simply made that choice without having to be asked, and subsequently have re-affirmed that choice at every opportunity.

by morganja :: Fri, 08/19/2011 - 6:23pm

Well, the courts decided there was in the case of the USFL, and I would argue with the others as well.

I know that the real world is full of crap. The NFL is way down the list of businesses that screw me. I wouldn't have given two thoughts to the NFL's status as a cartel if it hadn't locked out the players and forced its fans to endure the stupidity of the past year, or several years if you happen to have been a fan of a Jerry Richardson's team.

I have a DVR so I don't have to watch the hours of stupid commercials. I can actually watch a game I'm interested in in 45 minutes and a game I just want to catch the action in half of that time. I don't go to games anymore.
I've insulated myself from the expense of being a fan. If, however, they figure out how to prevent me from avoiding the commercials, the NFL would cost too much for me in exposure to ads alone.

by Andrew Potter :: Fri, 08/19/2011 - 12:26pm

Not that I want to wade into these waters, as I'm away across the Pond and don't care one whit about capitalism vs. socialism, but...

Your "free market principles" already have their perfect example in the world's most popular team sport. It's not an example I want the NFL to follow. While in theory it sounds like you would produce a better product through survival of the fittest and all that, what you end up with in practice is a bunch of small, usually regional leagues. Each of these leagues is dominated by between 1 and 4 teams who have more money and support than anybody else, with the rest of the league structure being chaff whose sole purpose is to cling desperately to the coat-tails of the bigger clubs in hopes of feasting from their scraps. In this situation, what ends up happening is the big clubs get together, form a competitive alliance with sponsorship which dwarfs any of the individual leagues, and through that alliance cement their own position ahead of any possible competitors in their domestic divisions. The only way to break into that clique is by spending the sort of fortune which would bankrupt most sports clubs, but the problem is everybody else is trying to do the same thing and having to use the same method. Even then, only perhaps four clubs have a realistic chance of winning the top competition in any one given season - and three of the four will always be the same (Barcelona, Real Madrid, Manchester United). This means the product on the field is great if you're one of the top handful of clubs, but the best anybody else can hope for is the occasional victory over one of the big boys and maybe a fluke triumph in a minor tournament.

In the NFL, any team is genuinely only two good offseasons away from competing at the top of the game (recent examples being Miami, both New York franchises, New Orleans). The level of competition is not only closer but much, much higher than it would be because everybody has to be an elite sportsman just to get into the league in the first place. That's simply not the case in soccer - you don't even have to be an elite sportsman to play international soccer in many instances.

And this purely from a competitive/entertainment standpoint - isn't even considering the complete financial mess that is competitive soccer.

by morganja :: Fri, 08/19/2011 - 1:45pm

I would take exception to associating soccer with sportsmanship. Terrell Owens would instantly be the classiest guy in soccer if he played, now that Zenidine Zidane is retired.
It's really hard to judge soccer in foreign countries because there is so much corruption. It's not really a free market if it is run by organized crime, which most of it seems to be.

by Andrew Potter :: Fri, 08/19/2011 - 3:26pm

Wow. I know I'm ignorant of US politics, but that level of blissful ignorance pales in comparison to the breathtakingly inaccurate, astonishingly misinformed, and impressively ignorant view of soccer you just expressed, to say nothing of your dismissiveness. Congratulations.

by Eddo :: Fri, 08/19/2011 - 4:16pm

Not only that, morganja picked out one word in that post, and then made a snide remark about an alternative definition of that word.

by morganja :: Fri, 08/19/2011 - 6:11pm

Please. Soccer is a dismal embarrassment of corruption. Are you really going to try to tell me that Blatter isn't a crook, that the World Cup wasn't given to Qatar and Russia based on massive bribes, that people weren't murdered to cover up the corruption, that matches aren't fixed on a regular basis, that organized crime isn't the main decider of who wins what? You can't go to a soccer site without having half the articles be about corruption of one source or another. You can pretend to be ignorant of all that, but please don't faint like a little girl over me referencing what is not only common knowledge but documented in a thousand newspaper articles every year.

I say all this as a soccer fan. I've always wondered why foreigners let their sports leagues be total jokes.

by Andrew Potter :: Fri, 08/19/2011 - 6:58pm

The jaded negativity of your post is surpassed only by the exaggeration contained within. I also particularly enjoyed your final comment; thanks for that insight into your perspective.

It would be far more useful if you actually discussed why you feel "free market principles" would produce in American football a result different to what I described them as having produced in soccer. This would be a more productive use of your time spent typing - as well as my and others' time reading - than continual petty, snide, inaccurate, exaggerated, and dismissive remarks concerning your negative perception of the sport I used as my example.

Why exactly do you believe that the model you propose for American football would produce a different and more favourable result from that I described as being realised in the real-world example of international soccer? If you do not believe it would produce a different result, why do you believe the result I described would provide a superior viewing experience than currently exists for the average NFL fan such as Dean or myself?

by morganja :: Sat, 08/20/2011 - 3:34pm

The entire point is that there is not a free market in international soccer because it is essentially organized crime. It's not a valid comparison to make to a free market system. Perhaps that is exactly what would happen to professional American Football. Maybe not. I just don't see how leagues organized for the benefit of organized crime are relevant to leagues in a country that is less accommodating to that sort of chicanery.

by Andrew Potter :: Sat, 08/20/2011 - 4:19pm

The entire point you're using to reject the example is rubbish. The assertion that soccer leagues are "leagues organised for the benefit of organised crime" is so utterly without merit that your use of it as an attempt at rebuttal in fact undermines your own position, as surely if you did have a cogent argument you would have used that instead. Rather, it looks fairly clear that you're refusing to accept the example for no other reason than that you don't want to accept the example, and you're not countering the points made because you either can't do it or can't be bothered.

Your perspective on USA vs. "foreigners", incidentally, is laughable. I'm glad the majority of people who post on this site do so in far more reasoned and far less insulting terms.

by morganja :: Sat, 08/20/2011 - 9:37pm

Please. Don't insult my intelligence. You can pretend all you want that soccer isn't immersed in corruption but I could, and you could just as easily, find 1000 articles about corruption in the sport in 5 seconds with google.
Let's just be clear. You are claiming that there is no corruption in soccer. Therefore you are claiming that the endless scandals, match fixing, bribery, gambling, murders and violence associated with soccer does not exist.
If you are going to call my argument 'rubbish' you are going to have to explain why there are literally thousands of articles put out by journalists all over the world, why there is officially recorded arrest, prosecutions and convictions, why all these people have conspired to lie about the state of the sport.
Then you are going to have to try to explain the ludicrous nature of the sport itself when anyone can tell most of the time who is going to win a match by observing the ref in the first ten minutes of a game.
I love soccer. I've played in a league for years. But international soccer is a sad joke of poor sportsmanship and supposedly talented players flopping all over the field getting calls from a paid off official. It's ten times worse than the NBA which is about as bad as it gets in America.

by Andrew Potter :: Sun, 08/21/2011 - 10:18am

Let's just be clear. You are claiming that there is no corruption in soccer.

Er, no I'm not. I'm stating that your claim that soccer leagues are "leagues organized for the benefit of organized crime" is an absurd and ludicrous overgeneralisation and, hence, rubbish. Corruption in soccer is extremely rare in all but a select few leagues.

Your claim that "foreigners let their sports leagues be total jokes" is worse: it's an absurd and ludicrous, chauvinistic overgeneralisation which is even more rubbish.

Then you are going to have to try to explain the ludicrous nature of the sport itself when anyone can tell most of the time who is going to win a match by observing the ref in the first ten minutes of a game.

Whereas this is pure crap. I defy you to do so with any consistency. I will freely admit you can usually tell who will win a match by how much money they've spent on players, which is my point from earlier and entirely not the same thing.

Of course, it's also evident that nothing I say will convince you otherwise so I'm now typing for the sake of typing.

Back on topic, you -still- haven't answered why you think a "free market" system for American football would produce a different result to the model I described, where talent is collected solely on the richest teams, even the richest teams are mostly haemorrhaging money, and the overall product is worse for the vast majority of fans. Well, you sort of have, but your answer consists solely of "we're Americans and Americans don't stand for that", which is as naïve as it is simplistic.

by dbostedo :: Sat, 08/20/2011 - 6:32am

I think you're probably right about Blatter and FIFA. (I only vaguely know European soccer, so take this with a grain of salt.)

But if you look a a league like the EPL, then you have something very comparable to the NFL. And again, you've got a pretty good free market model, and what you wind up with is 4-6 teams with a shot at the title every year. And the teams only change when there are massive influxes of cash (a la Chelsea a few years ago, and Manchester City more recently).

I completely agree that it not a model I want the NFL to move toward. Sure, you really wind up with the best playing the best (as the best talent tends to be concentrated in a small number of teams). But

So I could see a "free market" NFL going one of two directions. It could let the wealthy teams dominate, or it could cause fracturing and multiple leagues. Either way it would be a negative in my book. (Come to think of it, you kid of have both cases in Europe, and some of the top players play in EPL, La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga, etc. And La Liga is even worse than the EPL - there are really only two teams that are almost always in it - Barcelona and Real Madrid.)

by morganja :: Sat, 08/20/2011 - 3:41pm

Definitely a valid point. But see above on my belief that the leagues are actually set up to mostly benefit organized crime. Given freedom and protection from criminal activity, there is no reason why a league couldn't set itself up to meet the very commendable goals of parity and fair play. For one, a league that is not a group of independent owners, but one employer of a group of subsidiary teams competing economically against other professional football could very easily set up a draft, salary structure and rules that produce parity and exciting football within that league.
The difference is that the players are free to go to other leagues if they are unhappy with their situation, fans are free to be fans of other leagues that better meet their needs, and taxpayers are not coerced to pay for stadiums.

by RichC (not verified) :: Fri, 08/19/2011 - 10:17am

If our economy is any indicator, the free market don't work so well.

Color me surprised that morganja is railing against authority.

by morganja :: Fri, 08/19/2011 - 11:15am

Except that our economy is just the NFL writ large. Way too much of our economy has relied on special interest relationships between politicians and their buddies, restricting competition and eliminating the process of creative destruction for the well-connected, while spreading the pain of their failures over everyone else.

by tuluse :: Fri, 08/19/2011 - 12:56pm

The bond market was one of the least regulated industries in modern times.

I don't think the libertarian ideal of a free market has ever existed. Once the players get large enough, they just collude so the market is no longer free. The only way to fight that is with a regulatory body, which again means the market isn't truly free.

by drobviousso :: Fri, 08/19/2011 - 1:31pm

1)There are many different libertarian ideals to a free market. You are correct in suggesting that an unregulated free market can quickly form colluding entities, but I believe that you are wrong when you say the only way to fight it is with regulatory bodies.

Some ideals suggest a state power to actively prevent that (regulatory bodies) which, if functioning properly, do not define a market as non-free as you do. Some ideal demand a stateless or mini-state society so that those big players don't get government rents and can only exist as monopolies while they are efficient (ie good for the customer). Some ideals don't care because they value other civil liberties over those that must be reduced to change that.

2)You aren't wrong that this happens, but in most instances that I'm aware of, those big players always support themselves with government control or asymmetrical force.

standard disclaimer apply. single counter-factuals don't negate trends. you may not agree with my empirical observations. yadda yadda yadda

No, in recognition that this is getting too close to politics, I'll stop posting and just read.

by morganja :: Fri, 08/19/2011 - 1:33pm

I agree totally. The problem is that it is easier to collude than it is to compete and collusion crowds out competition. Only government can prevent collusion. Unfortunately, the government system is very good at setting up regulatory agencies that become captured by the companies they are supposed to police and simply enshrine the collusion with the blessing of law and the required kickbacks to politicians.
To bring this around to football, I would suggest that the primary beneficiary of the NCAA are the political machines in each state which pocket the vast majority of the revenue from college sports. Goodell and the NFL bend over backwards to support the NCAA not because of any direct benefit to them, in fact they would be better off with a more competitive stance, but because they are buying the support of the politicians they need to maintain their cartel.

by Theo :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:01pm

So where. For what pick.
I'd say the Cardinals and Bills. One of those will spend a 3rd on him.

by Kevin from Philly :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:41pm

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if my Eagles took a flyer, and not just because they're grabbing everybody else. Andy seems to like mobile QBs with above average arms, but questionable readiness to run an NFL offense. As a long term project, a 5th round pick might not seem like a high price to pay. Pure conjecture, of course, but Andy's done stranger things.

by Southern Philly :: Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:47pm

Albert Breer tweeted:

"My understanding is the NFLPA was prepared to fight the Pryor suspension, but the QB's camp chose to accept the penalty. Had the decision to fight the penalty been made by Pryor, it's likely the case wouldn't have been settled til well into the season."

by moe :: Mon, 08/22/2011 - 9:57am

Too bad they dont do an auction for the supplemental. I think it would be more dramatic.

Start by awarding the player automatically to the lowest ranked team for "free" then if a higher ranked team offers a 7th rounder and then continue auction style.