After you get past the first few studs there is probably a reasonable level of talent to pick from for possibly the first 25-30 picks.

It has been argued that the presence of studs in the first few picks makes a large difference to the bottom feeders and that giving them the top players in the 2nd round would swing things too far the other way.

I humbly disagree and offer the following points

(1) Cream rises to the top. In a majority (not all) of cases the teams that win year-in year-out do so because of their active nature in scouting, trading, etc. So even if giving the bottom teams the best players in every round narrows the gap in the short term, I believe that in 2-3 years the gap will be widened again. I look at the contraction draft as a one-time welfare payment. If the bad teams squander their edge in 3 years then don't come back looking for more welfare because this contraction draft is all you get. I think most of the teams that are consistently good can compensate for this by continued shrewd trading and drafting.

(2) The difference in the players I would categorize as STUDS and the players I would categorize as GOOD PLAYERS is subtle. In many cases they are based on non-tangible effects that don't show up in the 2002 stats. Based on team needs and/or the foresight of certain owners it is quite likely that a player taken @ pick #15 will be just as good as a player taken @ #5. [Maybe the difference is between a player with one good year versus a player that consistently has good years].

What I am trying to say is that in terms of immediate impact the difference in the STUDS taken at #4-#7 and the GOOD PLAYERS taken at #15-#20 may not be that big... and the long term impact will be compensated for by shrewd roster moves made by (as Darwin would say) "the fittest."

In summary as a strong team owner I'd like to bend over backwards to give the weak teams a big boost now and then if they squander it I don't want to hear whining about competitiveness again in 2 years.