The "PICK" Thing

[neonlyte]

You guys on your side of the stream have had a few laughs over cricket so I'm asking...

Someone explain this 'Pick' thing in American Football - Sports headline on BBC News 'Texas picks Williams over Bush' - well you've got to look if sounds like Bush is getting a whopping. Then I don't understand any of it.

Sounds to me like a bad night at a whorehouse - the pretty little brunette gets first picked by the fat sweaty guy and I end up with the gal with teeth like stars - they come out at night. Yeh.. it's an old one.

So what's the pick? Do the players have to go? Is there no team allegience - it's just for the money?

 

[WyoD_S]

You guys on your side of the stream have had a few laughs over cricket so I'm asking...

Someone explain this 'Pick' thing in American Football - Sports headline on BBC News 'Texas picks Williams over Bush' - well you've got to look if sounds like Bush is getting a whopping. Then I don't understand any of it.

Sounds to me like a bad night at a whorehouse - the pretty little brunette gets first picked by the fat sweaty guy and I end up with the gal with teeth like stars - they come out at night. Yeh.. it's an old one.

So what's the pick? Do the players have to go? Is there no team allegience - it's just for the money?

The NFL draft is this weekend. Each team has a certain number of 'picks' in the draft, according to how they finished last year, overall income last year, and a whole lot of other things I don't understand.

They are drafting (picking) which college players they want to offer a contract to and have come to training camp next season. The best players with the brightest futures supposedly get picked first.

Beyond that, there is alot about the draft I don't understand. Hopefully there's someone here that can explain it better.

 

[Liar]

So what's the pick? Do the players have to go? Is there no team allegience - it's just for the money?

To a certain extent...yeah.

If I'm not mistaken, the draft is giving a team first dibs at offering a contract to a certain player. Pecking order between the teams is like WyoD said based on a number of things, like team success, good economy, and so on. But it also makes sure the most popular team doesn't get all the good players. I don't know the exact rules (ask me about NHL drafts instead), but in the case of your headline, Texas picked Williams over Bush. This means that it's someone else's turn to pick, and they can get first dibs on Bush. Texas can't hog all the good players just because they are first to pick or richer than the other teams. Makes for more equal teams in a league, and more interresting games for the fans (and sponsors, I guess).

But sure, a player can turn down an offer for whatever reasons. But most often they don't, because they want to play in an as good a team as possible. (and yes, maxinize their paycheck)

 

[Lauren Hynde]

It all sounds very communist.

 

[neonlyte]

It all sounds very communist.

You are just a trouble maker Amicus is on holiday.

Thanks guys - a little the wiser. So how do you get to be first picker, surely it ought to be the worse performing team, to balance things out? Then who'd want to play for the worse team? Sounds like a way to ramp up player money.

 

[cloudy]

From Wikipedia:

The current format consists of seven rounds. Each team is assigned a selection in each round, with the team with the worst record from the previous year being assigned the first pick in each round. The team with the second-worst record gets the second pick, and so on until the 32nd and last team (the team that won the Super Bowl) makes its selection. The first overall pick generally gets the richest contract, but other contracts rely on a number of variables. While they generally are based on the previous year's second overall pick, third overall, etc., each player's position also is taken into account. Quarterbacks, for example, usually command more money than offensive linemen, which can skew those dollar figures slightly.

Each team has its representatives attend the draft. During the draft, one team is always "on the clock". In Round 1, teams have 15 minutes to make their choice. The decision time drops to 10 minutes in the second round and to 5 minutes in Rounds 3-7. If a team doesn't make a decision within its allotted time, the team still can submit its selection at any time after its time is up, but the next team can pick before it, thus possibly stealing a player the late team may have been eyeing.

The NFL Draft has developed a phenomenon known as "Mr. Irrelevant", which is the final player taken over the two-day event. This player actually receives some celebrity status, receiving a parade and even a Heisman Trophy lookalike, of a player fumbling a ball.
_________

Teams can also trade draft picks (their order in each round, not the actual player) before the draft for an established player on another team.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

You are just a trouble maker Amicus is on holiday.

That's true, but I'm also half serious. There's nothing wrong with being communist, but it's weird that from all the places in the world, this sort of thing happens in America, home of the basic anti-communist.

The normal thing would be to let each team do their own scouting and try to hire whatever player they want, regardless of anything else. That way every team would have a go at every player, and the best players would have plenty of offers and could go for the best, instead of just the one they're presented with.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

So how do you get to be first picker, surely it ought to be the worse performing team, to balance things out?

That's even more communist!

 

[neonlyte]

That's even more communist!

I agree with both your posts and having read Cloudy's Wink extract it certainly sees to fly in the face of everthing Amicus believes. Nested layers of rules and choices all designed to achieve a even distribution - Yep that's communist.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I agree with both your posts and having read Cloudy's Wink extract it certainly sees to fly in the face of everthing Amicus believes. Nested layers of rules and choices all designed to achieve a even distribution - Yep that's communist.

It's even more communist than you think. Notice how there's no second division? If you finish last, you continue play with the big boys next year. It's like those kindergarten games where no one loses!

 

[ElizabethWest]

So how do you get to be first picker, surely it ought to be the worse performing team, to balance things out? Then who'd want to play for the worse team? Sounds like a way to ramp up player money.

Hehe! Yes you get to pick first if you were the worst performing team the previous season. But just picking doesn't mean you sign that player. Then you start contract negotiations and a lot of crap that I don't know or care about.

Not surprising for Texas to bypass Bush (Reggie that is) since he is currently surrounded by ethical debate questions regarding his NCAA eligibilty because his parents were living rent-free in a home owned by an agent.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I agree with both your posts and having read Cloudy's Wink extract it certainly sees to fly in the face of everthing Amicus believes. Nested layers of rules and choices all designed to achieve a even distribution - Yep that's communist.

Basically, each player who quailifies, be it as a collegian or just reches age, becomes eligible to be taken in the Draft. The draft is basically a system whre by the teams secure exclusive rights to negotiate for a player's services. The order in which you pick is the reverse order to which you finished the previous season in the standings, but your picks, like players can be traded to another team.

This all started, because there was no dsalary cap in the early NFL. Basically, the league wanted to avoide what was happening in Baseball. I.e. the New York Yankees simply paid for the best talent, often ofering only cash to a team for their best players. Those teams, who weren't making enough to operatehad no choice but to accept. So the Yanks dominated.

The idea has evolved, so that now, the main goal is to keep parity in the league. If you suck so bad that you finish last, it is assumed you are in the most need of talent. Each round generally feautres anywehre from five to ten guys who were so outstanding n college, they are considered very strong prospects to thrive in the NFL as well. So the wrost teams, get thier shots at the top amature talent, before the teams that did well the year before.

Some teams however, despite a salary cap and multiple high draft picks are still just bad. While some, despite nearly a decade without a shot at a top prospect still are top teams. The cardinals, for example, have a cheap owner. He dosen't pay his own free agents to stay, so he basically drafts good guys, gets as much mileage as he can from their rookie contracts, then lets them go to free agency. New England, on the other hand, lands other teams free agents, while drafting guys they think can contribute. Still other teams, like denver, have proven to have superior scouting and player talent evaluation people, so they get star quality guys much later in the draft, because they rate them much better picks than the league in general.

The draft is a lot of fun to watch and speculate on and argue about who "your" team should pick. It has evolved to something of a PR tool nowadays, a way to keep football fans interested in football, during the offseason

 

[neonlyte]

Colly I understood that - it's pretty much a conjuring trick with rules designed to sell season tickets, teams have a mandated set of rules, then get to pick their own rules to obfuscate the opposition. Yeh - that could be fun to watch.

Over here kids grow up wanting to play football for 'their team', until very recently that is how things were, you came up through the juniors and, if you were good enough, you make the first team, and the money to keep you there. Then we had an EU ruling which granted players 'free agent' status at the end of their contracts. Net result, players are bought and sold to the highest bidder before contract expiry.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly I understood that - it's pretty much a conjuring trick with rules designed to sell season tickets, teams have a mandated set of rules, then get to pick their own rules to obfuscate the opposition. Yeh - that could be fun to watch.

Over here kids grow up wanting to play football for 'their team', until very recently that is how things were, you came up through the juniors and, if you were good enough, you make the first team, and the money to keep you there. Then we had an EU ruling which granted players 'free agent' status at the end of their contracts. Net result, players are bought and sold to the highest bidder before contract expiry.

It's a real problem, because you have to balance the player's interest with the sport's interest. It's not really fair to make a guy what is basically an indentured servant to the team who picks him. On the other hand, it would mean the end of competition in your league if you simply let the big market high cash flow teams buy the best guys at will.

In football, you are the "property" of the team that drafts you for the life of your rookie contract and usually beyond. After six years of service, you become eligible to be a free agent, but the team can opt to make you a restricted free agent. In which case, anyone can sign you to an offer sheet, but your team has the option to match that offer. If they choose not to match, they are compensated, by getting the signing team's draft pick, in the round where the guy was originally selected. The team aloso has the option to designate one "franchise" player and one "transition" player. The Franchise player, can be signed by someone else, but the cost is two first rounders or, generally, too steep for anyone to try and sign him away. He is compensated by a guarentee that he is paid att he average yearly salary of the top five players in the lague at his position.

there is a definte balancing act that has to be done in pro sports. And it usually takes quite a while to reach a system that is fair to both players, the teams and the fans.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

The idea has evolved, so that now, the main goal is to keep parity in the league. If you suck so bad that you finish last, it is assumed you are in the most need of talent. Each round generally feautres anywehre from five to ten guys who were so outstanding n college, they are considered very strong prospects to thrive in the NFL as well. So the wrost teams, get thier shots at the top amature talent, before the teams that did well the year before.

But doesn't that generate situations where a team, half-way through the season, realises they're not going to make it to the play-off, so they just stop trying? It's better to end last than to be the first not to reach the play-off...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

But doesn't that generate situations where a team, half-way through the season, realises they're not going to make it to the play-off, so they just stop trying? It's better to end last than to be the first not to reach the play-off...

With the wildcard system, most teams are at least mathematically in it till lat ein the season usually. There have been accusations in the past, that teams tanked it to get the top pick. Last year two teams, who both sucked horribly, played against each ohter and they both looked like they were trying to loose, but they were, after all, really bad teams.

Most teams don't tank it, because they want to fill the stadium and die heard fans will still come, even if you're loosing a lot. And most coaches won't because their job security is linked to winning, not getting high draft picks. You also have to realize, the draft is something of a crap shoot. Top pick command salaries like williams go 54 mil over five years, with 26 mil guarenteed. This is for a guy who hasn't taken a single snap at the pro level. And there have been some horrible busts. Even can't miss prostspets miss sometimes.

If you get the first pick, you have to look at the bright side, but it's not something most teams will shoot for. It's risky, it's expensive and most of all, you have to be god awful to be holding it.

ETA; It's a joy to se eyou posting again

 

[Lauren Hynde]

It's great to see you too!

 

[Lauren Hynde]

It all still sounds very communist, by the way. Albeit in the interest of rabid capitalist monopoly.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

That's true, but I'm also half serious. There's nothing wrong with being communist, but it's weird that from all the places in the world, this sort of thing happens in America, home of the basic anti-communist.

The normal thing would be to let each team do their own scouting and try to hire whatever player they want, regardless of anything else. That way every team would have a go at every player, and the best players would have plenty of offers and could go for the best, instead of just the one they're presented with.

Not communist, Lauren. Capitalism in it all its monopolistic glory. The team owners all got together and decided they needed a system that would keep a de facto cap on salaries and still provide the greatest revenues for their games. If each team could bid openly for the players they want, then the richest teams would always get the best players and dominate the sport and no one would watch the games.

The National Football League's dream is a thing called "parity," where all teams are pretty much of the same quality, in order to make the games more even and interesting. The amount of money a team can spend on players comes from their revenues, of course, and team revenues come largely from TV advertising, so teams in big TV markets like LA and New York make a lot of money while teams in minor markets like Green Bay, Wisconsion and Buffalo, New York, don't make that much. If they didn't pick players by drafting, the major markets would snap up all the best players and just crush the minor markets, and in no time there'd be no games worth watching,

Pro basketball uses a draft too, and so does baseball, but to a much lesser extent. That's because baseball players take longer to develop and so a player coming out of college is still a relatively unknown quantity. He still has to prove himself by working his way up through the team's minor leagues for a number of years. That's why a baseball team's minor league affiliates are known as the "farm system", because they "grow" players.

It's interesting that baseball is now trying to put together its version of the World Cup. I forget what it's called now (it really didn't generate that much interest here), but they just had a seies of games between players from different countries - Canada versus Japan, the US vs. Venezuela. I don't think it went that well. Baseball is a great game, but it doesn't have the concentrated excitement of soccer or football.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It all still sounds very communist, by the way. Albeit in the interest of rabid capitalist monopoly.

I wouldn't say communist. Communist would be redispersal of the players each year to make sure the bad teams got better. And I don't know anyone in a communist system who's making several million a year for working for les than 6 months

It's actually, faily egletarian. Other sports, like basketball use a weighted lottery to decide on draft order. This seems to minimize the inclination to tank your season, but it also means a good team might be picking first.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Not communist, Lauren. Capitalism in it all its monopolistic glory. The team owners all got together and decided they needed a system that would keep a de facto cap on salaries and still provide the greatest revenues for their games. If each team could bid openly for the players they want, then the richest teams would always get the best players and dominate the sport and no one would watch the games.

The National Football League's dream is a thing called "parity," where all teams are pretty much of the same quality, in order to make the games more even and interesting. The amount of money a team can spend on players comes from their revenues, of course, and team revenues come largely from TV advertising, so teams in big TV markets like LA and New York make a lot of money while teams in minor markets like Green Bay, Wisconsion and Buffalo, New York, don't make that much. If they didn't pick players by drafting, the major markets would snap up all the best players and just crush the minor markets, and in no time there'd be no games worth watching,

Pro basketball uses a draft too, and so does baseball, but to a much lesser extent. That's because baseball players take longer to develop and so a player coming out of college is still a relatively unknown quantity. He still has to prove himself by working his way up through the team's minor leagues for a number of years. That's why a baseball team's minor league affiliates are known as the "farm system", because they "grow" players.

It's interesting that baseball is now trying to put together its version of the World Cup. I forget what it's called now (it really didn't generate that much interest here), but they just had a seies of games between players from different countries - Canada versus Japan, the US vs. Venezuela. I don't think it went that well. Baseball is a great game, but it doesn't have the concentrated excitement of soccer or football.

In the NFl TV revenue is shared equally. As is merchadicing revenue. Even horrid owners like John York make millions, despite putting a product on the field that is just awful.

It's not the buying power of the franchises that is unequal, it's the money of the individual owners. Dan Snyder would buy the best players if he could. He keeps trying to buy a superbowl for himself. And he keeps failing miserably, but he has the personal money to just keep throwing it away in the effort. Greenbay is owned by the city and their player salaries do come, by and large from their revenue, so they have aharder time keeping free agents, although I'll be the first to admit, playing a contact sport, in a n outdoor stadium, in the dead of winter, would make Free agent Colly head south no matter how much cash the packers put on the table

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Not communist, Lauren. Capitalism in it all its monopolistic glory. The team owners all got together and decided they needed a system that would keep a de facto cap on salaries and still provide the greatest revenues for their games. If each team could bid openly for the players they want, then the richest teams would always get the best players and dominate the sport and no one would watch the games.

I understand the concept, but over on this side there are no salary caps, there's open bids on everyone, players are free agents, etc. and there's still a lot of competitivity, and everyone watches the games. In each national league there is a group of super-strong teams that will compete for first place, then a group of good teams that will be trying to qualify for European competitions, then a group of so-so teams that will do all they can to finish above the relegation spots, or else they'll have to play second-division the following season - but that guarantees that each team has actual achievable goals, so the fans watch! And most fans would watch their teams even if they lost every game. On the other hand, it has been extensively proven that having more money and better players doesn't always a decent team make. Real Madrid is probably the richest football team in Europe, the one with more trophies accumulated through the years, but they have still been bombing profusely recently. Of course that for them, bombing means finishing 2nd or 3rd domestically and reaching the quarter-finals of the European Champions League, which most other teams would kill for, but it doesn't make them feel any better.

 

[Liar]

Not communist, Lauren. Capitalism in it all its monopolistic glory. The team owners all got together and decided they needed a system that would keep a de facto cap on salaries and still provide the greatest revenues for their games. If each team could bid openly for the players they want, then the richest teams would always get the best players and dominate the sport and no one would watch the games.

The key here is to look at who is providing the product. The product is entertainment, catering to the fans of the teams. The National Football League in it's entireness is providing that entertainment, in free market cometition with other leagues (and sports, and other entertainment even). The individual teams do not,but operate within The League in order to maximize the value of The Lague for the consumers. Maybe we should see them as subdivisions to The League and not as individual companies on a free market.

And come think of it... different organizations compete on a free market, but within an organisation (a company, for instance) the same system is very rarely applied.

 

[R. Richard]

As has been said, the NFL draft is designed to promote parity of talent. The teams with the worst record last season get to pick before the teams with better records.

However, it is allowed that teams trade players and/or draft choices. Thus, a team that has finished with the worst record can trade their position in the draft to a team with a much better record. This last often happens because a really bad team needs to get many better players. Thus a really bad team will often trade a very high draft position to get several players/lower draft positions so that the bad team can try to improve several areas, rather than add the very best player available at just one position.

First, it is not required that a player accept being drafted by any NFL team. A player could choose to sit out the season for which he is drafted and then he is avaialble for the next season's draft. Since salariys for top NFL players are in the millions, it is not likely that a player will sit out a season. Also a player drafted by the NFL does not have to play in the NFL and can go out and try to get any job available, so long as it is not in the NFL. It is not all that uncommon that a player drafted by the NFL may choose to play professional baseball or basketball instead.

The reason why most of the bad NFL teams are bad is management. Bad management in professional sports almost guarantees a bad team.

 

[Liar]

First, it is not required that a player accept being drafted by any NFL team. A player could choose to sit out the season for which he is drafted and then he is avaialble for the next season's draft. Since salariys for top NFL players are in the millions, it is not likely that a player will sit out a season. Also a player drafted by the NFL does not have to play in the NFL and can go out and try to get any job available, so long as it is not in the NFL.

But if you're drafted by one team, and you don't want to play for them (for any of a number of reasons), does that mean you're locked out from playing at all that season?

It is not all that uncommon that a player drafted by the NFL may choose to play professional baseball or basketball instead.

Huh? If you're a pro in one sport, does that mean you're good enough to be a pro in an entirely different sport? I find that hard to believe. Does a good football player even have the same physical demands as a basketyball player? I'd guess one wants explosive strength and speed, where the other is more interrested in reach, coordination and agility.