Crazy NBA Free Agent Talk and Eric Winston's Ideas To Fix The NFL

I am not shocked the NBA free agent period has gotten off to a wild-spending start and I really shouldn't be. It happened last year when the Pistons opened up their checkbook and lost their common sense in giving Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva huge contracts. The Pistons lost their mind last year and they most likely regret it this year. This isn't the first time teams have done this on the first day of free agency. I am not even mentioning the contracts given out in the past to free agents like Jared Jeffries, Jerome James, and Brian Scalabrine. So basically the first couple of days in free agency is when the big-spending goes on...and often the big spending is not wise spending.

It happened again this year. Rudy Gay, who is maybe the 3rd best player on a good team got $16.4 million per year from the Grizzlies, who need him to be their 1st or 2nd best player. He scores, he is only 23 years old, but he doesn't play defense and hasn't shown the urge to be an even better player than he is now. Maybe this money will motivate him. Did I mention Gay was a restricted free agent and the Grizzlies could have seen how the market played out and offered him a contract later? Chris Wallace just got an extension I believe. The only extension he needs now is a cord to hand Grizzlies fans as they tie rope around the neck of dolls that look like Chris Wallace and burn him in effigy.

The Drew Gooden signing by Milwaukee for 5 years $32 million wasn't terrible, but he has bounced around a lot lately and I am not even sure if he should be a starter in the NBA or not. That's a lot of money over five years for a guy who may not even be a starter.

Amir Johnson got 5 years and $34 million because he is tall. Apparently the Raptors were impressed with the five game sample size where he started last year and averaged 17.8 points and 6 rebounds. Nevermind he has never shown that type of scoring or rebounding ability before. Shitty teams stay shitty because of signings like this. Also, the Raptors just drafted Ed Davis who plays the same position as Johnson.

My personal favorite is the Darko Milicic signing. 4 years and $20 million for 7 points and 5 rebounds (and I am rounding up) last year. Essentially Darko got this contract because he is tall. A reasonable person would anticipate the Timberwolves are going to regret paying Darko $5 million per year when he is providing them with 7 points and 5 rebounds. They may regret it today. I know teams need tall players, but is it necessary to overpay for them on the first day of free agency?

NBA teams save all of this money so they can spend that money on shitty players, or at least they have done this so far, and I don't get it. They spend their money like a high school graduate spends his graduation check on graduation week at the beach. I have no problem with teams spending money to improve themselves, but why jump on Darko with a contract like this after one day in free agency? If Darko's agent is half-way competent he will know if there are better options out there before Darko sign any contract, so I would assume the T-Wolves had the highest offer. They could have waited a while and I am sure if they had wanted Darko they could have gotten him at 4 years $20 million later in free agency. Amir Johnson is a bench player and he is now getting paid like a starter. I wish teams would save up their money to spend it more wisely.

-Eric Winston filled in for Peter King this week and had some ideas to improve and change the NFL. He didn't do a terrible job writing about this, but there were some of the ideas I wasn't exactly enamored with, plus there isn't too much other bad sportswriting out there before 4th of July weekend, so I figured I may as well discuss what Eric Winston had to say.

1. PLAY THE SUPER BOWL ON SATURDAY.

I agree with this idea on its face. It seems like a good idea and I have wondered why the NFL doesn't play the Super Bowl on Saturday. They may be concerned they wouldn't get the viewership they get on a boring Sunday night, and that makes sense. Many people who watch the Super Bowl on a Sunday may have other plans on a Saturday night.

Most sports fans would mention the house parties they attend to celebrate the big event. Others may think of their favorite sports bars where they can go and watch the game. It's safe to say the Super Bowl is synonymous with eating, drinking and getting together with friends.

The problem is that Saturday night is already synonymous with eating, drinking and hanging out with friends. Many people are going to go out and party anyway, so if the NFL had the Super Bowl on Saturday they would risk losing these casual observers because rather than be stuck in the house with nothing else on a Sunday night and watch the Super Bowl, these casual observers could go out and party with friends and don't watch the Super Bowl. So basically, the Super Bowl is a reason to go out and drink, but is a reason built around watching the Super Bowl on a Sunday, while if the game took place on Saturday night they would lose the people who have other things they want to do on a Saturday night. These are the casual fans.

Most people are able to enjoy themselves comfortably Saturday night because they have less obligations and responsibilities to attend to the next day. That's why it makes sense for the NFL to have its most important game on a Saturday.

At first thought, this is correct. As I stated above though, the NFL risks losing those people who go out and party on a Saturday night and don't like football enough to watch the Super Bowl. It does make sense to have the Super Bowl on Saturday, but the same people who like to party and go out to watch the Super Bowl on a Sunday night, but aren't NFL fans, will go do something else on that Saturday night instead of watch the game. That would decrease viewership.

I would love to have the Super Bowl on Saturday, but it becomes more of an event because nothing exciting happens on Sunday and the Super Bowl benefits from this in terms of high viewership.

No matter what day it is played on, diehard football fans are going to watch the game. But what about the casual NFL viewer? These are the ones who only watch if it is convenient for their schedule. To grow the audience of the Super Bowl, the NFL has to target those people.

Which is why the Super Bowl happens on a Sunday night and not a Saturday night. I think the NFL would lose the casual fan if they are presented with a better option on a Saturday night than the Super Bowl. Part of the lure of the Super Bowl on a Sunday night is that nothing exciting happens on Sunday nights. Saturday has more options to pull away the casual viewer, there's no way I think the viewership could actually be increased. What casual viewer isn't watching the Super Bowl on a Sunday night that would watch on a Saturday night if the Super Bowl took place then?

Conversely, Saturday is the night mom lets the kids stay up later while she watches Saturday Night Live, and that young professional is looking to relax after a long week. Grabbing these viewers, plus the diehards, would increase excitement while at the same time increasing viewership that adds new fans and increases revenue.

That young professional may also not be looking to stay in and do something and may want to go out and do something...which could involve not watching the Super Bowl. Who is to say these young professionals haven't already been grabbed by the NFL to watch the Super Bowl on Sunday night? I would love for the Super Bowl to be on Saturday night, but I think the NFL would lose viewers in doing this.

2. CHANGE THE SCHEDULE.

I propose changing the schedule to where each team plays every team in their conference plus one rival from the NFC.

Eric Winston just doesn't want the Texans to have to play the Colts twice a year. He thinks if they avoid the Colts twice a year the Texans will make the playoffs.

Let's face it, from year to year certain divisions are a lot stronger than others. In some years, the fourth best division champ is weaker than both wild card teams. Eliminating the divisions would guarantee the best teams make the playoffs.

I would like this idea based on the fact it would even the playing field by having each team play the same schedule. I am not for this idea though. I don't think there is a way to guarantee the best teams make the playoffs and if the fourth-best division champ is weaker than both wild card teams, what does it matter? If that's the case then the wild card team will have a chance to play the third and fourth-best division champ in the first round of the playoffs and beat them. No one really gets hurt in the current format.

Also, I don't like the idea NFC teams never play certain AFC teams (other than their "rival" in the other conference) except in the Super Bowl. That's another reason I don't favor this idea.

Three, it would add a brand new aspect to the league year -- cross-conference rivalry week. I love this idea. It's like interleague baseball, but for just one game a season. There are some great rivalries (Texans-Cowboys, Steelers-Eagles, Jets-Giants, Raiders-Niners, etc.) that would be awesome to see annually.

So Eric Winston is all about the great rivalries, but he wants to cause the Eagles-Cowboys, Giants-Eagles, Steelers-Ravens, and Broncos-Raiders rivalries to only happen once a year instead of twice a year? That doesn't make much sense to me. Steelers-Eagles isn't even close to be on par with the Eagles playing the Cowboys or Giants twice a year.

3. EXPAND THE ROSTER AND CREATE A MINOR LEAGUE.

Currently, NFL teams have 53 players on the roster and only 45 are active on Sundays. Roster limitations create issues for coaches and front offices as the season heads down the stretch. It also forces players to conceal injuries and play hurt, knowing their roster spot might depend on it. By expanding the roster by, say, six (59 total, 51 active), it gives coaches, executives and players more options on a weekly basis, like having backups who have been on the roster all season, and not simply plucked off the street. This also would allow teams to keep "bubble" players out of camp and let the team develop them.

I do sort of like this idea, but it also has drawbacks. What I love about baseball is how players are developed in the minor leagues and then eventually make their way to the majors. I don't know if it is viable in the NFL or not, but I wouldn't mind seeing an NFL-created league where teams are affiliated with NFL teams. The problem lies in that NFL teams would have another 53-man roster in the "minors" and that's a lot of football players. I don't know if the minor league football would be worth watching and just expanding the current NFL rosters may be a better and more cost-effective idea.

4. ESTABLISH A SENSIBLE ROOKIE WAGE SCALE.

How rookies get paid is the subject of much debate in the NFL. Here's my solution:

First rounders: Four-year contracts. Can't be franchised in fifth season.

Second rounders and below: Three-year contracts. Can't be franchised or restricted in fourth season.

All picks: 90% or more playing time = $1 million bonus
80% or more playing time = $750,000 bonus
70% or more playing time = $500,000 bonus
60% or more playing time = $400,000 bonus
50% or more playing time = $300,000 bonus

I may be confused, but I thought the length of the contracts wasn't the problem, but the monetary value of the contracts was the issue? A first-round lottery pick could still make a ton of money from a huge contract he signed as a lottery pick, but the contract is now shorter. This also brings up the question of why a team would sign a quarterback drafted in the lottery to a large four-year deal and then watch him sit for two years while they pay him a lot of money for sitting and knowing they will have to re-sign him in two years? Even if a team starts that quarterback from Day 1 of training camp, he will reach his potential (in a best case scenario) in his third year. This just seems like a short contract for a high draft choice.

That's just one example, but quarterbacks and receivers take a while to develop, so why would a team not be able to sign these long-term project players to a longer contract? Maybe this would work, but there is no point in drafting a quarterback in the second round and then starting him his third year only to have to re-sign the guy after that year. The same thing goes with a second round receiver or any other position. Later round players generally take longer to develop, but the contracts won't reflect this and shorter term contracts will end up with later round players being pushed into a position before they are ready just so NFL teams can see if that guy is a good player before he becomes a free agent.

5. CHANGE OVERTIME.

The second problem I have with the current OT is the arbitrary way the team gets the ball. Again, after a great game, the team that gets the first chance to win is the one who wins a coin flip. How is that the way to help decide a game?

There has to be some arbitrary way to decide which team gets the ball first in overtime, the coin flip as annoying as it may be, is just one of those ways to decide which team gets the ball first.

If you want to keep the current system, the ball should be given to the team with the most penetrations inside the 20, most total yards, least amount of penalties, or any way determined by what takes place on the field. But certainly not a coin flip.

So which team gets the ball first should be decided by a different arbitrary method?

For example...Say one team gets inside the 20 yard line four times and the other team gets inside the 20 three times. The game goes to overtime. The team that got inside the 20 yard line four times got three field goals out of their visits in the 20 yard line off three interceptions. Why should a team that has three interceptions in a game and moves into the other team's 20 yard line based on these interceptions get the ball first if the other team held that team to three field goals? Shouldn't the team that stopped the ball three times for three field goals be the one that gets the ball first since they have shown themselves to be a great defense and the other offense has shown itself to not be as good of an offense?

The team with the least amount of penalties is also a dumb way to decide which team gets the ball first in overtime. You may as well use a coin flip at that point.

My OT would start with the team who had the most possessions inside the 20 and letting them have the decision if they want the ball or not.

This is still arbitrary and not completely fair...just like the coin flip.

After play started, both teams would be guaranteed a shot at the ball. After both teams have their possession, and if it's still tied, then it goes to sudden death.

How is possession in sudden death decided? Probably a coin flip. So why would two teams play for 60 minutes and at that point a coin flip is too arbitrary to decide possession, but after each team gets one more possession the coin flip becomes the perfect way to decide possession in overtime? Why does every overtime idea that is predicated on the coin flip being "too arbitrary" eventually end up using the coin flip after each team gets one more possession? What does one more possession do that 60 minutes of football didn't do to make the coin flip more fair?

This is the end of Eric Winston's ideas to improve the NFL. Get this though...when he is deciding which teams will make the playoffs in the AFC (he leaves the Jets out and puts his Texans the Dolphins in the playoffs) he writes this:

I know I didn't put the Jets up there, and I don't mean any disrespect by it. They are loaded, but putting the pieces together can be tough in a short time period of time. I felt like there would be an odd man out in the AFC East and I just flipped a coin. Sorry, Jets.

THAT'S AN ARBITRARY AND STUPID WAY TO DECIDE WHICH TEAMS SHOULD MAKE THE PLAYOFFS! AFTER 30 MINUTES OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHICH TEAMS IN THE AFC WILL MAKE THE PLAYOFFS YOU JUST FLIP A COIN?

The 5th or 6th team in the AFC playoffs should be decided by what happens in Eric Winston's head not a coin flip. Or perhaps the 5th or 6th team should be decided by which team has the fewest letters in the team name or has the most players of Hispanic descent. But certainly not a coin flip!

SAINTS -- It's hard to see them not making it back to the postseason, although if the defense doesn't make the same big plays (pick-sixes, forcing turnovers, key stops, etc.) there could be some fall off. Drew Brees, though, is probably worth 10 or 11 wins minimum.

Which is why in the four years Brees has been with the Saints they have won 11 games exactly once. They have won 10, 7, and 8 games previous to that. So apparently Brees is worth 7 games minimum.

Sorry, I don't mean to bash the Saints, but Brees hasn't shown he is worth 10-11 wins minimum every year.

PACKERS -- It's a coin flip between them and the Vikings in the North.

For someone who hates coin flips, Eric Winston sure uses a lot of them to decide things in this column.

Call me crazy, but I think the Bears will be good. It seems like a lot of people are waiting for the Mike Martz-Jay Cutler relationship to blow up, but I see Cutler putting up big numbers if his offensive line holds up.

Of course he doesn't have the Bears in the playoffs, so he must not think the Bears will be that good.

The Bears offensive line is their biggest perceived weakness. If the biggest perceived weakness of every NFL team turns out to not be a weakness of course that team would have a better than expected year.

8. I think if soccer wants to get big in America, it needs to do what every other American sport has done: Cater to the offense.

If soccer wants to be popular in America, the rules should be changed so it doesn't look like the type of soccer other countries in the world play?

My suggestion for soccer? Make it 10 on 10. By taking one guy off, it will allow for the skill guys to have more space to do the amazing things that on occasion you see them do.

So yes, he thinks we should change the rules for how soccer is played...if the rest of the world wants the United States to get excited about soccer, which apparently would be a privilege for the rest of the world. Who says the United States expects the rest of the world to cater to them?

Enjoy the fourth of July weekend everyone.