[cliceperperIa]

This was a NLFPA "want" from the last few CBAs. Why would the owners want a franchise tag? The average of the top 5 (or is it 10) salaries for that position? That is a high price for a 1 year loan.

I think Franchise is average of the top 5 and Transitional tag is average of the top 10 salary.

I don't know if the NFLPA still likes all the aspects of the franchise and transition tags, we'll see.

The owners wanted the franchise tag because the last CBA gave players free agency after four years. That's not a lot of time to be able to control a player. They figured that the franchise tag would induce players to sign extensions that gave them a little more of a long term guarantee. It didn't really work out that way, but I think that was the reason.
If they keep unrestricted free agency at six years, like it was changed to this last season, the owners would probably forego franchise tags.

[Pete789]

Vikes are 31st in revenue, it's not like we're at the bottom

I don't think removing franchise tag will change the competitive balance as long as there is a salary cap and revenue sharing.

When the vikes get new stadium, they'll no longer be at the bottom in revenue. If that new stadium is in LA or elsewhere, I'll no longer care what happens.

I think that if you don't have a strong enough system that makes it easier for teams to keep their players you will lose parity. For example, the Lions would go 0-16 every year if they didn't have a way to hang on to the few good players they have. The Franchise tag makes those players choose between a long term contract with their current team or a franchise tag and future freedom at the risk of career threatening injury.

[Siffidiolla]

The owners wanted the franchise tag because the last CBA gave players free agency after four years. That's not a lot of time to be able to control a player. They figured that the franchise tag would induce players to sign extensions that gave them a little more of a long term guarantee. It didn't really work out that way, but I think that was the reason.
If they keep unrestricted free agency at six years, like it was changed to this last season, the owners would probably forego franchise tags.

The original concept was also quickly changed. The original thought process was if you franchised a player and than signed them long term, they remained your franchise player until that contract was up and you'd have no tag to use, teams would do a 1 year deal to get around this and then sign an extension....this rule may have changed, but that was original concept....teams started labeling back ups as their franchise player.

[JNancy46]

I think that if you don't have a strong enough system that makes it easier for teams to keep their players you will lose parity. For example, the Lions would go 0-16 every year if they didn't have a way to hang on to the few good players they have. The Franchise tag makes those players choose between a long term contract with their current team or a franchise tag and future freedom at the risk of career threatening injury.

Parity got a 7 - 9 team into the playoffs this year.

[plogypeskelry]

Parity got a 7 - 9 team into the playoffs this year.

Not sure I understand your point. You don't want parity?

As for Seattle, the whole reaction to that situation is ridiculous. When it starts happening on a regular basis then you do something about it.

[XGoFivk7]

Not sure I understand your point. You don't want parity?

As for Seattle, the whole reaction to that situation is ridiculous. When it starts happening on a regular basis then you do something about it.

The problem with parity is that most teams, with a little luck, can make the playoffs, so it eventually comes down to coaching in the playoffs. The Eagles cannot win a championship in that environment.