Ben Volin has a great piece this morning on how the league is trying to screw college underclassmen out of declaring for the draft.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/12/28/nfl-troy-vincent-sending-wrong-message-underclassmen/1uogF6X4mbLkMoyn1rKEgJ/story.html
Obviously this is just another in an increasingly long line of money-grubbing moves by the NFL – in this case designed to maximize the free farm system that is the NCAA and limit dollars it spends on players over the course of their careers.
But it makes me think: has the NFL always been this consistently amoral in how it conducts business? For all the instances Goodell busts out the "best interests of the game" argument, 99.9% of the time, he really means "the best interests of the league." Not the players. Not even the fans. But the league and the people who own it. And while I'm sure it's always been like this to some extent, it seems that every single decision they make today is about the bottom line. I have a hard time believing Rozelle, the Maras, Rooneys and Hunts were this narrow-minded when they were getting the league off the ground.
Is it just too much of a good thing? Is it the difference between establishing a league and maintaining one? I know the conventional wisdom is that of they could survive the Rice imbroglio they can survive anything. But it doesn't strike me as a sound long-term business strategy to be in a competition with the NCAA for "most corrupt sports institution."
At some point, Volin needs to challenge Kraft on some of this stuff.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/12/28/nfl-troy-vincent-sending-wrong-message-underclassmen/1uogF6X4mbLkMoyn1rKEgJ/story.html
Obviously this is just another in an increasingly long line of money-grubbing moves by the NFL – in this case designed to maximize the free farm system that is the NCAA and limit dollars it spends on players over the course of their careers.
But it makes me think: has the NFL always been this consistently amoral in how it conducts business? For all the instances Goodell busts out the "best interests of the game" argument, 99.9% of the time, he really means "the best interests of the league." Not the players. Not even the fans. But the league and the people who own it. And while I'm sure it's always been like this to some extent, it seems that every single decision they make today is about the bottom line. I have a hard time believing Rozelle, the Maras, Rooneys and Hunts were this narrow-minded when they were getting the league off the ground.
Is it just too much of a good thing? Is it the difference between establishing a league and maintaining one? I know the conventional wisdom is that of they could survive the Rice imbroglio they can survive anything. But it doesn't strike me as a sound long-term business strategy to be in a competition with the NCAA for "most corrupt sports institution."
At some point, Volin needs to challenge Kraft on some of this stuff.
