e=mc^2?

[GSPODS]

Mathematical Draft Value Formula:

S(255/x)= P(16/x)p(255/x)

S = Selection Number
P = Position
p = Potential

Selection Number (255/1) = Postion (QB)(16/1) X Potential(255/1) = 1,040,400

Where 1 is the first draft selection AND
Where QB is the #1 most valuable of the 16 player positions AND
Where the draft selection's potential is #1 of the 255 players selected in the draft.

What is the theoretical basis for this equation?

E(0)=mc(2). The theory of rest mass energy.

[yupchagee]

Mathematical Draft Value Formula:

S(255/x)= P(16/x)p(255/x)

S = Selection Number
P = Position
p = Potential

Selection Number (255/1) = Postion (QB)(16/1) X Potential(255/1) = 1,040,400

Where 1 is the first draft selection AND
Where QB is the #1 most valuable of the 16 player positions AND
Where the draft selection's potential is #1 of the 255 players selected in the draft.

What is the theoretical basis for this equation?

E(0)=mc(2). The theory of rest mass energy.

Are you saying that it's all relative

[Champsturf]

E(0)=mc(2). The theory of rest mass energy.

So, mass, times the speed of light, times 2=0???

My math must be rusty...


either that, or I just can't read math on today's computers...

I like the "rest" part....that way it can make sense.

Thanks.

[Irn-Bru]

E(0)=mc(2). The theory of rest mass energy.

So, mass, times the speed of light, times 2=0???

My math must be rusty...


either that, or I just can't read math on today's computers...

I think he meant E(raised to the zeroeth power) = MC(raised to the second power). Of course. . .that leaves you with 1 = MC^2, so there's still a problem. . .

[GSPODS]

E(0)=mc(2). The theory of rest mass energy.

So, mass, times the speed of light, times 2=0???

My math must be rusty...


either that, or I just can't read math on today's computers...

I think he meant E(raised to the zeroeth power) = MC(raised to the second power). Of course. . .that leaves you with 1 = MC^2, so there's still a problem. . .

E (Energy) to the Zeroeth power represents Potential Energy.
E to a power greater than Zero represents Kinentic Energy.
Potential being stored energy is a direct corollary to the potential of a draft prospect being stored, is it not?

[yupchagee]

E(0)=mc(2). The theory of rest mass energy.

So, mass, times the speed of light, times 2=0???

My math must be rusty...


either that, or I just can't read math on today's computers...

I think he meant E(raised to the zeroeth power) = MC(raised to the second power). Of course. . .that leaves you with 1 = MC^2, so there's still a problem. . .

E (Energy) to the Zeroeth power represents Potential Energy.
E to a power greater than Zero represents Kinentic Energy.
Potential being stored energy is a direct corollary to the potential of a draft prospect being stored, is it not?

Not quite. E^0 or anything other than 0^0 is 1. 0^0 is undefined.
You need to use a subscript p for potential.

[GSPODS]

E(0)=mc(2). The theory of rest mass energy.

So, mass, times the speed of light, times 2=0???

My math must be rusty...


either that, or I just can't read math on today's computers...

I think he meant E(raised to the zeroeth power) = MC(raised to the second power). Of course. . .that leaves you with 1 = MC^2, so there's still a problem. . .

E (Energy) to the Zeroeth power represents Potential Energy.
E to a power greater than Zero represents Kinentic Energy.
Potential being stored energy is a direct corollary to the potential of a draft prospect being stored, is it not?

Not quite. E^0 or anything other than 0^0 is 1. 0^0 is undefined.
You need to use a subscript p for potential.

It's not my theory. It's Einstein's theory. Are you going to argue his mathematical equation? I'm not that intelligent.

[yupchagee]

E(0)=mc(2). The theory of rest mass energy.

So, mass, times the speed of light, times 2=0???

My math must be rusty...


either that, or I just can't read math on today's computers...

I think he meant E(raised to the zeroeth power) = MC(raised to the second power). Of course. . .that leaves you with 1 = MC^2, so there's still a problem. . .

E (Energy) to the Zeroeth power represents Potential Energy.
E to a power greater than Zero represents Kinentic Energy.
Potential being stored energy is a direct corollary to the potential of a draft prospect being stored, is it not?

Not quite. E^0 or anything other than 0^0 is 1. 0^0 is undefined.
You need to use a subscript p for potential.

It's not my theory. It's Einstein's theory. Are you going to argue his mathematical equation? I'm not that intelligent.

Einstein's famous equation is:
e=mc^2
I'm not about to dispute Einstein. There was no subscript or superscript on the e. e is energy, m is mass & c is the speed of light. It means that by destroying a small amount of matter, you can get a whole lot of energy. This is the principle on which nuclear power & nuclear weapons are based.

[GSPODS]

E(0)=mc(2). The theory of rest mass energy.

So, mass, times the speed of light, times 2=0???

My math must be rusty...


either that, or I just can't read math on today's computers...

I think he meant E(raised to the zeroeth power) = MC(raised to the second power). Of course. . .that leaves you with 1 = MC^2, so there's still a problem. . .

E (Energy) to the Zeroeth power represents Potential Energy.
E to a power greater than Zero represents Kinentic Energy.
Potential being stored energy is a direct corollary to the potential of a draft prospect being stored, is it not?

Not quite. E^0 or anything other than 0^0 is 1. 0^0 is undefined.
You need to use a subscript p for potential.

It's not my theory. It's Einstein's theory. Are you going to argue his mathematical equation? I'm not that intelligent.

Einstein's famous equation is:
e=mc^2
I'm not about to dispute Einstein. There was no subscript or superscript on the e. e is energy, m is mass & c is the speed of light. It means that by destroying a small amount of matter, you can get a whole lot of energy. This is the principle on which nuclear power & nuclear weapons are based.

E(0)=mc(2). The theory of rest mass energy.
E(1)=mc(2). The theory of relativity.

The two theories are the same in principal.
(E)nergy is equal to (m)ass multiplied by a (c)onstant speed squared.
(M)ass is equal to (E)nergy multiplied by a (c)onstant speed squared.
Mass and energy are both equal and transmutable.
Constant: 299,792,458 M/S OR 670,616,629.3843951 MPH

This is still a theory. The point being that so is draft selection.

[yupchagee]

GSPODS wrote

E(0)=mc(2). The theory of rest mass energy.
E(1)=mc(2). The theory of relativity.

The two theories are the same in principal.
(E)nergy is equal to (m)ass multiplied by a (c)onstant speed squared.
(M)ass is equal to (E)nergy multiplied by a (c)onstant speed squared.
Mass and energy are both equal and transmutable.
Constant: 299,792,458 M/S OR 670,616,629.3843951 MPH

This is still a theory. The point being that so is draft selection.

I have never seen e^0=mc^2. It makes absolutely no sense. Are you a physicist?

Draft selection isn't a theory, it's an art.

[Irn-Bru]

Moved and gave this its own thread. . .

[DESkins]

And how many of you said "I'll never use this stuff once I get out of school"?

[skinsfan1]

what the hell is this?

[GSPODS]

Rest mass energy

Albert Einstein was the first to calculate the amount of work needed to accelerate a body from rest to some finite speed using his definition of relativistic momentum. To his surprise, this work contained an extra term which did not vanish as the speed of accelerated body approached zero:

This term (E0) was therefore called rest mass energy, as m is the rest mass of the body (c is the speed of light in a vacuum). (The subscript zero is used here to distinguish this form of energy from the others that follow. In most other contexts, the equation is written with no subscript.)

So, the rest mass energy is the amount of energy inherent in the mass when it is at rest. If the mass changes, so must its rest mass energy which must be released or absorbed due to energy conservation law. Thus, this equation quantifies the equivalence of mass and energy.

Due to large numerical value of squared speed of light, even a small amount of mass is equivalent to a very large amount of energy, namely 90 petajoules per kilogram ≈ 21 megaton of TNT per kilogram.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy

[GSPODS]

This was not intended to be atopical to the original discussion thread.

E(0) is equivalent of a draft selection who has potential, but has not yet played.
The draft selection is a mass at rest.

Energy, being neither created nor destroyed, but only transferred from one form to another according to the Law of Energy Conservation, is the combined sum of a draft selection's perceived potential. The player's draft selection number, multiplied by the draft selection's positional value equals the player's perceived potential.
E(0) = Perceived Potential = Salary

Positional Value (Subjective):
Is a QB more valuable by position than a LT? One would think so, however, positional value is only one-half of the equation.

Draft Selection Number:
Is the #1 draft selection more valuable than the #3 draft selection? One would think so, however, valuable is the wrong word. The #1 draft selection has more perceived potential than the #3 draft selection, regardless of positional value.

(S)alary = (P)ositional Value X (D)raft Number

$=255/1 X 16/1
$=$4,080,000.00
^Jake Long

$=255/21 X 16/8
$=$242,857.00
^21st Draft Selection

$=255/255 X 16/16
$=$1.00
^255th Draft Selection

This formula works for any of the 255 draft selections in terms of establishing a relative value.

The 255th draft selection is not making $1.00. He is making the league minimum. But relative to the 254 draft selections preceeding, the 255th selection is worth one-four millionth of the first draft selection.

Am I making any sense?

[Bob 0119]

This was not intended to be atopical to the original discussion thread.

E(0) is equivalent of a draft selection who has potential, but has not yet played.
The draft selection is a mass at rest.

Energy, being neither created nor destroyed, but only transferred from one form to another according to the Law of Energy Conservation, is the combined sum of a draft selection's perceived potential. The player's draft selection number, multiplied by the draft selection's positional value equals the player's perceived potential.
E(0) = Perceived Potential = Salary

Positional Value (Subjective):
Is a QB more valuable by position than a LT? One would think so, however, positional value is only one-half of the equation.

Draft Selection Number:
Is the #1 draft selection more valuable than the #3 draft selection? One would think so, however, valuable is the wrong word. The #1 draft selection has more perceived potential than the #3 draft selection, regardless of positional value.

(S)alary = (P)ositional Value X (D)raft Number

$=255/1 X 16/1
$=$4,080,000.00
^Jake Long

$=255/21 X 16/8
$=$242,857.00
^21st Draft Selection

$=255/255 X 16/16
$=$1.00
^255th Draft Selection

This formula works for any of the 255 draft selections in terms of establishing a relative value.

The 255th draft selection is not making $1.00. He is making the league minimum. But relative to the 254 draft selections preceeding, the 255th selection is worth one-four millionth of the first draft selection.

Am I making any sense?

Not that I am in any way qualified to discuss this, but the basics of the theory seem pretty sound.

It is a rare thing when the number 2 or 3 draft pick makes more than the first overall. That's not to say that it hasn't happened, but it is rare. Most agents negotiate their players salaries based on the number 1 overall pick's salary. It's not as simple as the top pick makes the most and each subsequent make incrimentally less so value of position certainly seems to be a factor.

You're theory seems to take into account that the number 2 overall could make more than the number one overall based on their positional values.

As to the E=MC^2 debate

If I recall my history channel correctly, wasn't Einstien's theory designed to prove that nothing travels faster than light? The theoretical problem was posed as "what if you are on a train, travelling at the speed of light, and you walk from the back of the train to the front, aren't you travelling faster than the speed of light?" Einstien's theory of relativity proved that your speed is relative to your own momentum. You are travelling at about 2.5 miles per hour on a train travelling the speed of light, therefor you are not travelling faster than light.

[GSPODS]

Not that I am in any way qualified to discuss this, but the basics of the theory seem pretty sound.

It is a rare thing when the number 2 or 3 draft pick makes more than the first overall. That's not to say that it hasn't happened, but it is rare. Most agents negotiate their players salaries based on the number 1 overall pick's salary. It's not as simple as the top pick makes the most and each subsequent make incrimentally less so value of position certainly seems to be a factor.

You're theory seems to take into account that the number 2 overall could make more than the number one overall based on their positional values.

As to the E=MC^2 debate

If I recall my history channel correctly, wasn't Einstien's theory designed to prove that nothing travels faster than light? The theoretical problem was posed as "what if you are on a train, travelling at the speed of light, and you walk from the back of the train to the front, aren't you travelling faster than the speed of light?" Einstien's theory of relativity proved that your speed is relative to your own momentum. You are travelling at about 2.5 miles per hour on a train travelling the speed of light, therefor you are not travelling faster than light.

The theory is that the Perceived Value of the 1st draft selection is greater than the 2nd draft selection. The reality is that the 1st draft selection has a higher perceived value to the team drafting the player, but not necessarily a higher actual value. That is why the theory is based upon perceived value.

What would be interesting is to use the same theory to calculate actual value, based upon performance, about three years after the draft. The odds are greater than the lottery odds that the perceived values and the actual values would be the same.

But if a team perceives a draft selection to be worth top five money, the team will pay top five money regardless of whether or not any negotiations would lower the Salary. And because of the way NFL contracts can be structured, it is relatively painless to offer a draft selection a $50 Million-Plus contract. Only half of the money, at most is guaranteed. And the contract is likely six years or longer. Only the signing bonus is actually guaranteed. The rest of the figures are a combination of salary and "Likely to be earned" incentives and bonuses.

So, out of that $50 Million, $20 Million is the guaranteed signing bonus, divided over the length of the contract. Salary, Roster Bonuses, and Incentives are only earned if the player is on the active roster. So, while cutting a 1st round selection in the short term may seem like an idiotic thing to do, teams could conceivably do it for a lot less than the total contract amounts indicate.

I perceive that the value of Durant Brooks will be equal to, or greater than the value of not only Derrick Frost, but also equal to, or greater than the value of two or more draft selections taken prior to Brooks by the Redskins. By this theory, Brooks' actual value is greater than his perceived value. So, this remains a theory until which time as I can attempt to prove it and create Podman's Law.

[Bob 0119]

The formula seem pretty solid. It does cut out the team and agent variables though.

For example, if the first overall were a QB (instead of a DL), and he recieved a huge contract, then the amount paid to each subsequent player, regardless of his perceived value tends to be influenced by the first overall's signing amount.

[GSPODS]

The formula seem pretty solid. It does cut out the team and agent variables though.

For example, if the first overall were a QB (instead of a DL), and he recieved a huge contract, then the amount paid to each subsequent player, regardless of his perceived value tends to be influenced by the first overall's signing amount.

The sliding scale contracts are due to the player agents, not the owners or the players.
If the 1st draft selection is a QB, and the 2nd draft selection is a LT, the QB is perceived to be worth considerably more. If both turn out to be Franchise Players, the QB is worth more. If both turn out to be career backups, the QB is still worth more.

If we reverse the above, the QB at #2 is perceived to be worth an equal or greater amount to the LT taken at #1 because of roster position. In a case such as this, it is possible the #2 pick would get a larger contract than the #1 pick. The talent level in recent years hasn't been deep enough at the top to have such a situation but I'm sure it will come up soon enough.

[Bob 0119]

Certainly the formula takes into account the relavent positional values, but the formula doesn't take into account the influence that the 1st overall pick's contract has on the subsequent pick's contracts.

If a LT is first and a QB is second, then certainly the case is made that the 2nd overall contract would be higher than the 1st overall pick's cotract, and that each contract below the 2nd would be influenced by the contract the preceedes it.

However it doesn't leave room for the theory that the same two players if picked in reverse order (the QB at 1 and LT at 2) would both see richer contracts due to the influence of the QB being taken at number 1.

[GSPODS]

Certainly the formula takes into account the relavent positional values, but the formula doesn't take into account the influence that the 1st overall pick's contract has on the subsequent pick's contracts.

If a LT is first and a QB is second, then certainly the case is made that the 2nd overall contract would be higher than the 1st overall pick's cotract, and that each contract below the 2nd would be influenced by the contract the preceedes it.

However it doesn't leave room for the theory that the same two players if picked in reverse order (the QB at 1 and LT at 2) would both see richer contracts due to the influence of the QB being taken at number 1.

The formula does account for the influence of the 1st overall selection's effect on all subsequent selections with regard to perceived value. It also, although unintentionally, accounts for the 1st overall selection's influence with regard to actual value. Why? Because even if the 2nd selection is perceived to be more valuable than the first, as in the LT followed by QB scenario, the 2nd draft selection will never be paid more than the first draft selection on the initial contract. There would be no sense in trading up or down if trading up to #2 was more expensive than trading up to #1.

[Bob 0119]

Certainly the formula takes into account the relavent positional values, but the formula doesn't take into account the influence that the 1st overall pick's contract has on the subsequent pick's contracts.

If a LT is first and a QB is second, then certainly the case is made that the 2nd overall contract would be higher than the 1st overall pick's cotract, and that each contract below the 2nd would be influenced by the contract the preceedes it.

However it doesn't leave room for the theory that the same two players if picked in reverse order (the QB at 1 and LT at 2) would both see richer contracts due to the influence of the QB being taken at number 1.

The formula does account for the influence of the 1st overall selection's effect on all subsequent selections with regard to perceived value. It also, although unintentionally, accounts for the 1st overall selection's influence with regard to actual value. Why? Because even if the 2nd selection is perceived to be more valuable than the first, as in the LT followed by QB scenario, the 2nd draft selection will never be paid more than the first draft selection on the initial contract. There would be no sense in trading up or down if trading up to #2 was more expensive than trading up to #1.

Yes, but what we had both agreed (at least I thought) was that based on your formula, a QB selected 2nd behind a LT could recieve a richer contract than the 1st overall based on his positional value.

My theory is that in this scenario, both the LT and QB could benefit from the QB being selected first as both contracts would be substantially higher because the QB would establish the "high-water mark" that would/could influence the negotiations of the LT.

[GSPODS]

Certainly the formula takes into account the relavent positional values, but the formula doesn't take into account the influence that the 1st overall pick's contract has on the subsequent pick's contracts.

If a LT is first and a QB is second, then certainly the case is made that the 2nd overall contract would be higher than the 1st overall pick's cotract, and that each contract below the 2nd would be influenced by the contract the preceedes it.

However it doesn't leave room for the theory that the same two players if picked in reverse order (the QB at 1 and LT at 2) would both see richer contracts due to the influence of the QB being taken at number 1.

The formula does account for the influence of the 1st overall selection's effect on all subsequent selections with regard to perceived value. It also, although unintentionally, accounts for the 1st overall selection's influence with regard to actual value. Why? Because even if the 2nd selection is perceived to be more valuable than the first, as in the LT followed by QB scenario, the 2nd draft selection will never be paid more than the first draft selection on the initial contract. There would be no sense in trading up or down if trading up to #2 was more expensive than trading up to #1.

Yes, but what we had both agreed (at least I thought) was that based on your formula, a QB selected 2nd behind a LT could recieve a richer contract than the 1st overall based on his positional value.

My theory is that in this scenario, both the LT and QB could benefit from the QB being selected first as both contracts would be substantially higher because the QB would establish the "high-water mark" that would/could influence the negotiations of the LT.

True. If the QB is selected first, the contracts will likely be larger amounts. They will still, however, be on the same sliding scale whether the QB or the LT is selected first.

If the QB at #1 gets a contract worth $10M per year, the LT at #2 will get a contract less than $10M per year. If the LT at #1 gets the $10M per year contract, the QB at #2 will get less than $10M per year.

Why? Because player agents arguing that their client, who was chosen 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. is more valuable than the #1 overall selection is not a bargaining chip to bring to an NFL owner's table. No owner would offer more to a lower selection than was offered to the #1. Sometimes, being #5 is intentional on the basis that the owner would prefer to pay the #5 salary as opposed to trading up. If there is no difference in the payscale, then what good does it do a team to have top 10 picks? Wouldn't every team with a top 10 pick be trying to trade down if they had to pay #1 money to a pick other than the #1 overall selection? I would think they would.