TWO salary cap writeups from Chris Mortensen & Brad Kevedis...

[RoadLizard 73]

These are both longer reads, but they are RIGHT ON and its about time the whiny-ass commie pinkos start realizing the Cap is killing football from inside....you'll see!

 

League should have no need for any type of salary cap - (03/08)

By Brad Kvederis

 

The end of the salary cap is coming, they say, and in the ensuing anarchy, all 1,696 players in the league will sign $20 million contracts with Dallas or Washington, which will then win the next 50 consecutive Super Bowls while everyone else stands around watching helplessly.

 

The end of the salary cap will be the end of competition in football, they say. Overnight, the Pittsburgh Steelers will turn into the Pittsburgh Pirates. The Kansas City Chiefs will become the Royals. The sky is falling.

 

I say let it fall. Kill the salary cap, grind it into little pieces and bury it so deep it could never come back even if it was a zombie in a cheap horror movie. Over the past 13 years, we've had the idea of parity and big-market/small-market economics shoved down our throats so many times, we've forgotten that the salary cap is ruining football.

 

How so, you ask? The cap enforces parity by law, which is great, I guess, if the memory of Trent Dilfer leading the Baltimore Ravens to a Super Bowl victory brings a tear of nostalgia to your eyes. The cap robs the game of its truly memorable teams, making sure that there are enough holes in each of them that even the Patriots' "dynasty" will forever be followed by the words "in the salary cap era."

 

The cap creates a different power balance every year, but not by generously leveling the playing field between the haves and the have-nots. Basically, it destroys teams at random.

 

Think, for a moment, about what would have happened to the 49ers of the '80s under the current system.

 

Sorry, Ronnie Lott - we can't afford to keep you. Just business, you understand, but have fun playing for the Panthers. Too bad, Steve Young - you don't fit into our budget. Good luck with the Jets, and we'll remember to go 4-12 next time Montana gets hurt. Adios, John Taylor - the Lions need a second receiver, and we're prohibited from offering you even half as much as they will.

 

The stuff of legends,

 

huh?

 

The truth is, a salary cap causes you to lose just as many players to higher bidders as a free-for-all capless market would. The only difference is that under the current system, it doesn't even matter who's bidding against you for your top-notch players. They're just gone.

 

Baseball is always mentioned as the prime example of what's wrong with a "free" free-agent market. The Yankees are the greedy Evil Empire, the A's are the spunky Little Engine that Could, and greed beats spunk every time. But what would've happened to the A's if there had been a salary cap in baseball?

 

Giambi? Still gone - just maybe to the Tigers or the Astros instead of the Yankees. Tejada? If Giambi stayed, Miguel would be a cap casualty without a doubt. Mulder and Hudson? They'd cost too much to keep anyway, or else Harden and Zito would.

 

Thing about baseball is, it has just as much parity as football, but without the salary cap. A different World Series winner in each of the past six seasons? Ten different teams in the Series during that span? Looks like parity to me.

 

Last year's World Series featured the White Sox (12th in total payroll) against the Astros (13th). In 2003, the Marlins ($54 million payroll) beat the Yankees ($164 million). Before the NHL lockout, the Tampa Bay Lightning ($40 million payroll) won the Stanley Cup, while the New York Rangers ($80 million) missed the playoffs.

 

Rich or poor, smart teams can win in pro sports without a salary cap. Throw the NFL's cap on the trash heap where it belongs, and let smarts be measured in terms of football sense in September, not in an accountant's ledger in the middle of March.

 

------------ END of First article ------------------------

 

FROM Chris Mortensens Blog page:

 

This is all so stupid. The NFL salary cap has always been an exercise of inefficiency, but this is ridiculous. Over the past few seasons, teams have operated under the assumption that a new CBA would be in place by today and signed players accordingly. Now, because of ineptitude not seen since FEMA, many NFL teams will have to gut their rosters to comply with a cap they had not anticipated having.

Salary caps are good idea in theory, much like Communism. In execution, however, they can be a total joke. The whole point of a cap is to keep teams from outspending others in free agency, an effort to level the playing field, if you'll excuse the tired cliche. The NFL's cap has done this, but it has come at a cost. Teams frequently have to cut star players whose cap numbers become unwieldy in the later portions of the contract. Well-run franchises actually get hurt by the cap when their past draft picks become stars and, thus, price themselves out of their team's price range. The salary cap was never intended for that. Teams shouldn't have to get rid of the players they developed. The NBA has rules in place for this and allows teams to retain such players. In the NFL, you almost get penalized for draft day success.

The salary cap became a joke when teams began inventing ways to circumvent immediate cap hits with prorated signing bonuses, incentive clauses, etc. At that point, an immediate overhaul needed to take place, but with everybody getting rich from TV deals and revenue slices, nobody wanted to admit the cap wasn't working as originally intended.

Supporters of the cap in its current form often use the "parity defense" which, basically is: Going into every season, all 32 NFL teams have a chance to win the Super Bowl. Baseball, which has no cap, only has a handful of teams that can have serious World Series aspirations, they'll argue.

It's a very convenient argument, but it ignores the main reason each NFL team has a shot to make a playoff run: The length of the league's season.

As I've contended many times on this site before, most NFL team's seasons hinge on a handful of plays. If, for instance, the Washington Redskins hadn't burned Roy Williams twice in Dallas or if Josh Brown had made a game-winning field goal in the Seattle game, they wouldn't have been in the playoffs and everybody would have been ridiculing Joe Gibbs for coming back and tarnishing his legacy. Conversely, if Casey Rabach doesn't commit an idiotic holding penalty against Oakland and the referees correctly ruled Mike Alstott down in the Tampa game, the Redskins would have been 12-4 and had a home divisional playoff game.

Every team can point to four or five plays that end up being the difference between a high draft position and a playoff berth. The brevity of a 16-game schedule lends itself to flukes. In baseball, the best teams always advance to the playoffs because over 162 games luck plays less of a factor. The Washington Nationals were in first-place entering last July, mainly on the strength of their unbelievable record in one-run games. It was obvious the team couldn't keep winning such contests at an 85% clip and in the second-half of the season, as was expected, they fell back in the pack. There was one 16-game stretch in August where the Tampa Bay Devil Rays had the best record in the A.L. East. Had that occurred in a football season, they would have been a shocking playoff entry. In baseball, it was just a nice run by a bad team.

NFL parity is a myth. When free agency began everybody said there would be no dynasties anymore. The Dallas Cowboys and New England Patriots have proven the opposite to be true. Teams with good front offices and good coaching will always be ahead of the pack, salary cap or not.

 

---------------------- END of second article ---------------------------------------

[ChesterMarcol 0]

Some good points but it would pretty much end the Green Bay Packers.

[Vikings4ever 496]

I would like to see a veteran's exception the next time the CBA comes up for negotiation, but for the most part, I love the NFL's salary cap.

 

The NFL is in the best shape of all the major leagues, and it has the most stringent salary cap and the weakest player's union. I don't think it's a coincidence.

[adanley 1]

Some good points but it would pretty much end the Green Bay Packers.

 

...and the end of the Cardinals, Vikings, Rams, Buccs. Basically every team except NYG, NYJ, SF, NE and CHI.

 

Obviously, I feel a cap is important. That's why baseball is on the decline. Why develop and draft talent, if richer teams can be lazy and buy up all of the best players (Yankees). No, it doesn't by them a championship, but it sure buys them contention every single year. If they fail, oh well, spend some more money next year. Steinbrenner never goes in the red anyway, so why not do this. It's like playing a game of monopoly with one team starting with half the board and the other with Baltic Ave. Why play the game?

[RoadLizard 73]

...and the end of the Cardinals, Vikings, Rams, Buccs. Basically every team except NYG, NYJ, SF, NE and CHI.

 

Obviously, I feel a cap is important. That's why baseball is on the decline. Why develop and draft talent, if richer teams can be lazy and buy up all of the best players (Yankees). No, it doesn't by them a championship, but it sure buys them contention every single year. If they fail, oh well, spend some more money next year. Steinbrenner never goes in the red anyway, so why not do this. It's like playing a game of monopoly with one team starting with half the board and the other with Baltic Ave. Why play the game?

 

How do you figure all thos teams are gone? How did the SMALL market Bills and Bengals of the 80's and 90's get to the Big Show? maybe they did it with crafty management and smart personnel moves?

 

Why shouldnt the Cardinals be booted? They have been the most inept team for like 40 years how many chances do we get before enough is enough? Would MONEY Help the Cardinals? Nope, Bill Bidwell is a very rich man...he just doesnt know what the frick hes doing and never has. Thats not Jerry Jones fault!

 

Plenty of teams suck and its noones fault but their own. Plenty of small market teams have "somehow" made it and many big-spenders have failed. Didnt you read the articles?

 

You like teams changing players every year? You like shoddy football? You like a bunch of .500 teams battling it out...er..... seeing who sucks less?

 

Whatever bro.... its sad that the NFL has everyone sold on this. At least Mort can se through the BS....

[Jeremy 0]

The question is, do you want a league in which all 32 teams are important to the overall success of the league or do you want what baseball has, Yankee vs. Red Sox pimped to the extreme while most of the rest of the league is fodder.

 

The first author at least prefers the latter. You do get some good out of it. In those maquee games you get good ratings and good ballgames. Redskins vs. Cowboys would be some epic battles for a long time.

 

Are you willing to throw half the league under the bus to achieve that, though? I'm not. Fortunately the powers that be aren't either. So write all the articles you want. It's not changing anytime soon. The NFL actually cares about all it's franchises, and it doesn't look like they're hurting much to me.

[RoadLizard 73]

The question is, do you want a league in which all 32 teams are important to the overall success of the league or do you want what baseball has, Yankee vs. Red Sox pimped to the extreme while most of the rest of the rest of the league is fodder.

 

The first author at least prefers the latter. You do get some good out of it. In those maquee games you get good ratings and good ballgames. Redskins vs. Cowboys would be some epic battles for a long time.

 

Are you willing to throw half the league under the bus to achieve that, though? I'm not. Fortunately the powers that be aren't either. So write all the articles you want. It's not changing anytime soon. The NFL actually cares about all it's franchises, and it doesn't look like they're hurting much to me.

 

What does "Important" to the league mean? Making sure that noones feelings are hurt so every 32 years they take turns winning the Super Bowl ONCE and then it resets? Just curious what you mean here? Punish those who win to help the perennial losers who STILL suck anyways? Sort of like welfare eh?

 

Marquee games are what make the NFL great, or USED to. Dilfer vs Collins OR Staubach vs Bradshaw? Tough decision.. I know.....

 

 

Half the league would not fold....C'mon! A few teams would and thets GREAT, they should fold. There arent enough players around to field good teams as it is.

 

Hey whatever.... thank goodness for fantasy ball because otherwise me and a LOT of other people ould find something else to do on Sunday instead of watch Suck-fest .500 teams battle it out.

[ephford 0]

How did the SMALL market Bills and Bengals of the 80's and 90's get to the Big Show? maybe they did it with crafty management and smart personnel moves?

 

 

The difference is the amount of money teams are making now compared to then. Have you looked at what teams are now worth? Naming rights, clothing sales, stadium revenues, etc.

 

Crafty management and smart personnel will always be an aide. Without a cap, though, it would aide the rich teams in becoming juggernauts and the poor teams in becoming average.

 

I do agree, though, that something should be done about veterans. That is my only beef with the cap system.

[ROCKET 0]

Great, then we can see the same team win their division 12 years in a row and always make the playoffs

[Jeremy 0]

How do you figure all thos teams are gone? How did the SMALL market Bills and Bengals of the 80's and 90's get to the Big Show?

 

You can't compare the economics of the 80s to that of today. It's not even remotely close.

 

What does "Important" to the league mean? Making sure that noones feelings are hurt so every 32 years they take turns winning the Super Bowl ONCE and then it resets? Just curious what you mean here? Punish those who win to help the perennial losers who STILL suck anyways? Sort of like welfare eh?

 

Marquee games are what make the NFL great, or USED to. Dilfer vs Collins OR Staubach vs Bradshaw? Tough decision.. I know.....

Half the league would not fold....C'mon! A few teams would and thets GREAT, they should fold. There arent enough players around to field good teams as it is.

 

Hey whatever.... thank goodness for fantasy ball because otherwise me and a LOT of other people ould find something else to do on Sunday instead of watch Suck-fest .500 teams battle it out.

 

I never said they would fold. I said they would be fodder.

 

And how do you figure the product would be better. You'd have a handful of superpowers, that's true. And those marquee matchups would get people attention. But you'd also have more games of abysmal quality, as the low market teams play against each other. So you have a couple good games and a bunch of crap every week or you have a bunch of pretty good games and a few bad ones like we do now. I guess it's a matter of preference.

 

I'm admittadly biased. I'm a Packer fan and it's in my interests that the system stays the way it is. Otherwise there would never have been a Reggie White, or even a Charles Woodson. Who's your team?

[RoadLizard 73]

Great, then we can see the same team win their division 12 years in a row and always make the playoffs

 

Hey...if you don't like it you could always try to beat them! Oh yeah.... thats right we cannot possibly be forced to actually beat anyone, if they dont stop winning we'll just have to strip all the players away from the strong team so both teams are now .500 and extremely boring to watch every week. Sounds good to me.

 

Thats better.... everyone wins in the special olympics and the NFL..... GREAT!

[hellothere 1]

while i disagree with completely abolishing the cap, (i don't want to see Peyton, C.Johnson, TO, Moss, and LT take on the 2nd unit of the 49ers D for years) i do agree that there should be a clause, or something to help teams keep home grown stars. i would like to see a rule that says you can go over a certain limit with one or a few players that a team drafted for X number of years.

[RoadLizard 73]

I'm admittadly biased. I'm a Packer fan and it's in my interests that the system stays the way it is. Otherwise there would never have been a Reggie White, or even a Charles Woodson. Who's your team?

 

I was a Houston Oilers fan but I am NOT a Texans fan. Not the same as my 'Ol blue! I understand your Packer concerns but they would NEVER fold! You dont think they would be able to field a monster team as well? I disagree. Small market or not, I betchya The Pack would be fine....why?

 

Because they are managed and coahed well or at least have been in the past. Ron Wolf and company would have keep this team on top for 10 years easy in ANY system.

 

Good frnachises stay good, bad ones stay bad. Always.

[Steel City Blues 0]

The veterans exception thing is a solid idea, at least it attempts to keep a team together before they get broken up by the Salary Crap. Otherwise too many garbage teams get glorified when they actually suck. You guys like all this .500 team idiocy? I dont....

 

Best shape? The NFL? maybe from a purely TV viewership perspective but plenty of people are starting to see the effcts of the cap.... no loyalty, mediocre football, pretenders making Super Bowl runs with no credibility, etc, etc.

 

The NFL rocks because of fantasy football.

 

 

 

If the NFL becomes a Yankees vs. Red Sox affair, I will lose interest as a fan. Baseball is not the American Past-time any more because the labor agreement brought the sport down. I don't follow baseball today (couldn't name more than 20 players) & I was really into it as a kid. It's a shame what happened to that sport.

 

 

Again about fantasy football being the reason the NFL rocks! Get a clue. Baseball has a fantasy following too. If I were still a big baseball fan, I'd be playing fantasy baseball now...not fantasy football.

 

DON'T F WITH A GOOD THING!

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

No cap really works well in baseball

 

One of the things that makes football better than the other sports is how they implemented the cap. Sure, you won't have teams made up of superstars and some may wax poetically about the past (Mortensen), but the reality is that people do the same thing about all things that are old. It happens in baseball without a cap.

[shadow2k 0]

Those two writers are idiots.

[thothwink 0]

It makes no sense to me to criticize a system that has been so successfull. While I am sure small tweaks could be made to the cap to help keep a few veterans and to make sure the players are justly awarded for their unique skills to herald the MLB system as the answer is just silly.

[Vikings4ever 496]

How do you figure all thos teams are gone? How did the SMALL market Bills and Bengals of the 80's and 90's get to the Big Show? maybe they did it with crafty management and smart personnel moves?

Or possibly they did it with free agency being non existent. NFL free agency didn't really begin until 1992.

[Jeremy 0]

I was a Houston Oilers fan but I am NOT a Texans fan. Not the same as my 'Ol blue! I understand your Packer concerns but they would NEVER fold! You dont think they would be able to field a monster team as well? I disagree. Small market or not, I betchya The Pack would be fine....why?

 

Because they are managed and coahed well or at least have been in the past. Ron Wolf and company would have keep this team on top for 10 years easy in ANY system.

 

Good frnachises stay good, bad ones stay bad. Always.

 

So you're what now, a Cowboys fan?

 

When all the talk was going around last winter about the uncapped year, they were talking about this quite a bit on the local radio stations. They figured the Packers organization had enough cash reserves to hang for about 10 years before we'd lose our ability to stay competitive. We have no owner. We have to operate at a profit, or at least break even. We'd stay around sure, but we'd have a fraction of the payroll the Cowboys and Redskins would have.

[Treyvw 0]

Just a note... The Florida Marlins are a game over .500 and within 2 games of the Wild Card in the National League with a payroll of $15 Million... their entire squad makes less than A-Rod...

 

It isn't always about money; a great deal of other factors are involved.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Just a note... The Florida Marlins are a game over .500 and within 2 games of the Wild Card in the National League with a payroll of $15 Million... their entire squad makes less than A-Rod...

 

It isn't always about money; a great deal of other factors are involved.

 

They play in a crappy league???

 

If those same Marlins had to play in the AL East, they would be the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. HTH

[Jeremy 0]

Just a note... The Florida Marlins are a game over .500 and within 2 games of the Wild Card in the National League with a payroll of $15 Million... their entire squad makes less than A-Rod...

 

It isn't always about money; a great deal of other factors are involved.

 

That has as much to do with the National League sucking than the Marlins being good. Eventually those good players are going to be too expensive for them to keep and they will be sold off to higher market clubs.

 

In MLB you have a minor league system that can restock your roster if they do well. In the NFL, the small market teams will have to rely almost exclusively on a 7 round draft. When those picks pan out, say bye-bye to those players. They're leaving for teams that can pay them their market value. It's a myth that ending the salary cap will keep players on one team longer. That will be the case for the rich teams, but the poor teams will become almost like a minor league farm system for the rich teams without a cap. But hey, won't those Cowboys vs. Redskins games be classics!

[miket7 0]

All dumb arguments and I don't even know where to begin.

So I'll just try to remember some of the dumber points that I can remember.

 

 

 

1. Unless you were a 49ers fan, why would it matter to anyone if their 80's dynasty had never existed? Football would have still been entertaining, and actually probably would have been better...since during that time there were only about 4-5 teams that even had a shot at beating San Francisco.

 

2. In my opinion, watching the Baltimore Ravens win the Super Bowl with lowly Trent Dilfer was actually a breath of fresh air for the NFL...thanks to the salary cap. For once, a team actually won the whole thing without being forced to sign a superstar quarterback.

 

3. So all these poor teams can't afford to sign their hotshot, overhyped, greedy, me-me-me draft picks because they want too much money. Let them walk and fill their spots with team players (ie: New England Patriots).

 

 

You know what I think?

I think the real reason these guys want to see the salary cap diminish is because about their own wallets.

 

Because of the way the NFL is currently set up, teams loaded with star offensive players (such as Indianapolis) usually don't have the balance at other positions to make a Super Bowl run.

As a result, media outlets such as ESPN then don't have the "star power" to market and hype up.

 

Instead of being able to pump up teams that have guys like Peyton Manning, LaDainian Tomlinson and Randy Moss...they have to focus on lesser players like Matt Hasselbeck, Willie Parker and Hines Ward. And before those guys are able to dominate and become huge marketable superstars, other teams jump up to take their place.

 

 

That, and the fact that parity reveals that the "experts" don't know anything more than a regular joe, so people aren't as interested in listening to them.

In the 80's, you could pick the 49ers, Redskins or Giants to win the NFC and at the end of the season look like a genius.

Nowadays, you could pick someone to win the Super Bowl and watch them end 4-12.

[Greedo 13]

Those advocating eliminating the cap are missing the point. I don't care how many Marlins examples you cite - I'll cite Royals/Pirates/Brewers examples.

 

The important thing is leveling the playing field. That's what the cap does. None of the rest matters. I don't care if there aren't all-star teams any more. What I care about is that the Packers have the same opportunity to win as the Redskins and Cowboys. Under the cap, they do. If they don't win, it's coaching, scouting, and drafting, not money.

 

In a non-cap world, they do not. Plain and simple. Again, the key word is equal opportunity, and this point cannot be debated. The Marlins do not have the same chance to win as the Yankees. Plain and simple.

[Eriadoc 4]

I don't know too much about the current CBA re: salary cap, but I think people here are confusing revenue sharing with salary cap. If the salary cap were eliminated and revenue sharing remained unchanged, the small-market teams wouldn't necessarily go away. I am not sure how much the revenue sharing would have to change, but the Bills, Packers, etc. would be just fine. They wouldn't have the gajillions that NY would have, but they'd have enough to do business. It would really be just like baseball - the small-market teams would receive shared revenue and have to get more bang for their buck, like the Oakland A's.

 

IMO, that would suck, but I just wanted to point out that the conversation seems to be confusing the two.

[De Novo 0]

I think the salary cap is what's great about football. It fails in two areas though:

 

"home-town hero" exceptions

--give each team a salary cap credit for x% of a player's cap hit if they have x years of service. Say, 10% for 5 years? 20% for 8 years?

 

Guaranteed Rookie contracts are out of control. If I'm a team sitting on a top 3 pick pick, I trade it. The bust rate is too high to justify those guaranteed contracts. Reggie Bush is probably the highest paid back in the league (if not, he's close). Ridiculous. Vince Young getting only a couple hundred thousand per year less... ridiculous! Meanwhile, Deoin Branch is getting a million bucks a year. Rookies need to be paid for performance more.

[shadow2k 0]

Just a note... The Florida Marlins are a game over .500 and within 2 games of the Wild Card in the National League with a payroll of $15 Million... their entire squad makes less than A-Rod...

 

It isn't always about money; a great deal of other factors are involved.

 

And we all know the Marlins won't do jack in the end, if they even make it to the playoffs. And in a couple years, when their young players are up for new contracts, they'll have to let them go to the teams like the Yankees, that will pay those guys infinitely more than the Marlins could, even if they won the series (which they won't).

 

I live in KC, so I know quite a bit about this type of deal. Losing Beltran, Dye, Damon... There's simply no way that KC can compete to keep their young stars, and not go out of business. Their payroll last year was about 1/5th of what the Yankee's was. Teams like KC simply do not make enough TV and Radio revenue to keep up with the larger markets.

 

Is it sad to see the dynasties of the old NFL gone? Hell no. How many people outside of NE want to see Brady and company win another SB? Not me, that's for damn sure.

 

The NFL became the most popular sport in America BECAUSE of the way caps are dealt with. It's why baseball has gone down the toilet. Who wants to see the Yankees win every year that doesn't live in NY? The majority of people outside of those large markets don't even pay attention to the sport anymore, including myself. It sucks, it's boring, and fairly predictable. Sure, one small market team will compete now and again. And soon after, they lose all their stars to the larger markets. That promotes the death of a sport, and it's exactly what we see in baseball today.

[RoadLizard 73]

name='Greedo' post='2658036' date='Sep 5 2006, 08:32 PM']

Those advocating eliminating the cap are missing the point. I don't care how many Marlins examples you cite - I'll cite Royals/Pirates/Brewers examples.

 

The important thing is leveling the playing field. That's what the cap does. None of the rest matters. I don't care if there aren't all-star teams any more. What I care about is that the Packers have the same opportunity to win as the Redskins and Cowboys. Under the cap, they do. If they don't win, it's coaching, scouting, and drafting, not money.

 

In a non-cap world, they do not. Plain and simple. Again, the key word is equal opportunity, and this point cannot be debated. The Marlins do not have the same chance to win as the Yankees. Plain and simple.

 

If they DO win its coaching and scouting! When was the last time a team bought a title successfully? Not much of that happening since everyone knows that a team gets built and it takes a while. Even the Yanks run in the late nineties that got everyones panties into a knot was all because the great talent they got from WITHIN the organization. Period.

 

The Royals / Pirates / Brewers have every right to spend some money and sign who they want. They have billionaire owners just like the Yanks . You want A-Rod...cough it up then? Noone ever sees that these lousy teams dont TRY at all to win.... they just REFUSE to everyone and then ###### cause the Yanks sign them.

 

It takes hard work and actually TRYING to actually succeed...... geesh.

[Phurfur 70]

I see it this way: If the salary cap is eliminated players salaries are going to be driven dramatically. If this happens the owners are not going to eat the difference they will pass it along to us. I really don't want to pay more to see a bunch of over paid premadonna's. I really feel in the next 5-10 years football will pass me by just like baseball and basketball did. I am just enjoying it while I can.

[jgcrawfish 232]

Mort is a tool and doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, and you're a fool for believing him. He's wrong about baseball and wrong about basketball and completely off his rocker on how the NFL will still be a level playing field without salary caps.

 

In MLB, roughly 75% of the teams that make the post season are amoung the highest 25% of payrolls in the league. Paying A-Rod dollars might not get you a title, but it generally does get a trip to playoffs. And baseball isn't an apples to apples comparison to NFL in that baseball teams have farm systems, where salary hardly matters. They have an opportunity to grow their own players and don't have to bid on them an open market (hence the reason teams like Oakland somehow stay competitive).

 

In NBA, the salary cap is a joke. It's a soft cap, and it has been exceeded many times already. Rich owners could really give a crap about overspending past the cap if it brings them a title. There's a reason that NBA ratings have declined steadily over the past few years despite the fact that more often than not superstars are able to be kept in one city.

 

No salary cap in the NFL would eventually doom the small market NFL teams (Green Bay, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincy, etc) because it would eventually lead to the demise of revenue sharing. If all teams are spending roughly the same amount on player salaries, and are not allowed to exceed them, teams can take a shot at buying a title, but their window is only 1 to 2 years, then they pay for it cap hell. If the NFL wanted to allow for good organizations (Steelers, Patriots, Carolina, Indy, Denver, and any other perennial playoff team) to make "dynasties" then they should implement the "Bird" guilelines that the NBA has. Mainly, let a team with rights to a player pay slightly more than any other team can offer and let that team exceed the salary cap by a certain percentage ONLY on those players who meed the "Bird" criteria. But Mort and this other dude can take a flying leap if they think it will be better without a cap when owners like Snyder and Jerry Jones will pay whatever they want because the money the spend is offset by the increase in value of the franchise that the titles can buy.

[RoadLizard 73]

All dumb arguments and I don't even know where to begin.

So I'll just try to remember some of the dumber points that I can remember.

1. Unless you were a 49ers fan, why would it matter to anyone if their 80's dynasty had never existed? Football would have still been entertaining, and actually probably would have been better...since during that time there were only about 4-5 teams that even had a shot at beating San Francisco.

 

2. In my opinion, watching the Baltimore Ravens win the Super Bowl with lowly Trent Dilfer was actually a breath of fresh air for the NFL...thanks to the salary cap. For once, a team actually won the whole thing without being forced to sign a superstar quarterback.

 

3. So all these poor teams can't afford to sign their hotshot, overhyped, greedy, me-me-me draft picks because they want too much money. Let them walk and fill their spots with team players (ie: New England Patriots).

You know what I think?

I think the real reason these guys want to see the salary cap diminish is because about their own wallets.

 

Because of the way the NFL is currently set up, teams loaded with star offensive players (such as Indianapolis) usually don't have the balance at other positions to make a Super Bowl run.

As a result, media outlets such as ESPN then don't have the "star power" to market and hype up.

 

Instead of being able to pump up teams that have guys like Peyton Manning, LaDainian Tomlinson and Randy Moss...they have to focus on lesser players like Matt Hasselbeck, Willie Parker and Hines Ward. And before those guys are able to dominate and become huge marketable superstars, other teams jump up to take their place.

That, and the fact that parity reveals that the "experts" don't know anything more than a regular joe, so people aren't as interested in listening to them.

In the 80's, you could pick the 49ers, Redskins or Giants to win the NFC and at the end of the season look like a genius.

Nowadays, you could pick someone to win the Super Bowl and watch them end 4-12.

 

You're arguments are all dumb..but I'll try:

 

1. The 49ERS were the definition of excellence and YOU had to be excellent to beat them. Sorry that the other teams werent up to the task. maybe they could have tried harder? Nooooo, lets fix it with a salary cap...dont wanna put anyone out of their way...

 

2. Happy for Trent Dilfer? A breath of fresh air? Watching a complete bumbling idiot QB win a Super Bowl because he showed up that day? Are you serious? The Ravens, Bucs, and a few other teams even making the Super Bowl has completely DE-legitimized it...it is WORTHLESS to win in this era of "Feel good" NFL politics. The Pats were simply the best .500 team for a few seasons and shot their wad. They just sucked a little less than everyone else.

 

3. Team players? What team...the Pats are already half broken up..... the NFL had to step in and "fix" the problem. The crime? Winning and being good. Sorry about that.....

 

Yeah, heading into the season with NO stakes, NO top team to knowck off, and NO teams staying intact really does set things up for an intriguing season. It is completely stoopid to "reset" everything every year .... how the hell is that "good"?

[Vikings4ever 496]

Or possibly they did it with free agency being non existent. NFL free agency didn't really begin until 1992.

...

[Ras66not99 0]

If they DO win its coaching and scouting! When was the last time a team bought a title successfully? Not much of that happening since everyone knows that a team gets built and it takes a while. Even the Yanks run in the late nineties that got everyones panties into a knot was all because the great talent they got from WITHIN the organization. Period.

 

The Royals / Pirates / Brewers have every right to spend some money and sign who they want. They have billionaire owners just like the Yanks . You want A-Rod...cough it up then? Noone ever sees that these lousy teams dont TRY at all to win.... they just REFUSE to everyone and then ###### cause the Yanks sign them.

 

It takes hard work and actually TRYING to actually succeed...... geesh.

 

Yankee fan I see

 

P.S. - fock baseball

[AnaheimRams 28]

Both of those articles are chock full of logical fallacies and innane analysis.

 

Anyone that would use these to justify their opinion against the cap is an idiot.

 

Fact is:

 

Spending a lot of money does not gaurantee a title.

 

Spending very little money does not gaurantee failure.

 

Duh.

 

Those points, however, are not close to an acceptable argument against the cap.

 

 

In MLB (with no cap), it can easily be shown that the teams in the upper third of payroll perfrom significantly better than the teams in the bottom third.

 

Game, set... match.

[shadow2k 0]

If they DO win its coaching and scouting! When was the last time a team bought a title successfully? Not much of that happening since everyone knows that a team gets built and it takes a while. Even the Yanks run in the late nineties that got everyones panties into a knot was all because the great talent they got from WITHIN the organization. Period.

 

The Royals / Pirates / Brewers have every right to spend some money and sign who they want. They have billionaire owners just like the Yanks . You want A-Rod...cough it up then? Noone ever sees that these lousy teams dont TRY at all to win.... they just REFUSE to everyone and then ###### cause the Yanks sign them.

 

It takes hard work and actually TRYING to actually succeed...... geesh.

 

The Yanks in the 90's were NOT built from within. How old are you, do you even know who was on those teams? Let's take a look at their 99 roster:

 

1B Tino Martinez - SEA

2B Chuck Knoblauch - MIN

3B Scott Brosius - OAK

LF Chad Curtis - CAL

RF Paul O'Neil - CIN

DH Chili Davis - SFG (originally, but he'd been passed around like a joint)

P Clemens - BOS

P Cone - KC (NYM)

 

Sure, they had a few homebrews, like Posada, Jeter, BWilliams and A Pettitte. But hell, the Royals had just as many home grown stars at one point with guys like Damon, Sweeney, and Beltran. But the difference was that while both teams could raise talent from the farm, only one of them had the revenue to allow them to surround that talent with other high priced FA's to support a playoff run, and eventual WS ring.

 

You don't seem to understand the underlying economics. Steinbrenner spends more money, because his team makes more money from TV/Radio revenue. His payroll would be WELL below $100mil if he was in a small market.

 

The small markets don't TRY to win (aka: buy every good player they see) because it would put them out of business. If the Royals tried to operate with even a $75mil payroll, they'd lose millions of dollars every single year, regardless of whether they won the series or not. The only way for them to keep their head above water was to go with a $30mil payroll. They upped it to something like $50mil this year, and they'll lose money in the process.

 

It is not good for the sport. It would not be good for the NFL. If you want to watch a bunch of dynasty teams win it every year, I suggest you watch baseball. Or ESPN classic.

[bigtuna 0]

If you have almost absolute revenue sharing like the NFL does....then a salary cap makes ZERO sense.

 

It makes sense in baseball with little revenue sharing, to help prevent the gap between the haves and the have nots from growing. (of course they do not have it)

[shadow2k 0]

If you have almost absolute revenue sharing like the NFL does....then a salary cap makes ZERO sense.

 

It makes sense in baseball with little revenue sharing, to help prevent the gap between the haves and the have nots from growing. (of course they do not have it)

 

They only share national revenue, and ticket sales. Most local revenue is not shared, which is a huge difference between a small market and large market team. If you pull the cap on the NFL with the way revenue sharing is right now, it would be no different than baseball.

[miket7 0]

You're arguments are all dumb..but I'll try:

 

1. The 49ERS were the definition of excellence and YOU had to be excellent to beat them. Sorry that the other teams werent up to the task. maybe they could have tried harder? Nooooo, lets fix it with a salary cap...dont wanna put anyone out of their way...

 

I agree. The 49ers were the definition of excellence and teams did have to be excellent to beat them. But that is completely irrelevant to the point.

The article writer (who I was replying to), was suggesting that the NFL was somehow better because the 49ers were able to stockpile star players and dominate the NFL for half a decade. That is baloney.

During the late 1980s, the NFC was pretty much a 3 or 4 team race from the beginning. And even when the 49ers didn't win the Super Bowl, they at least made it far into the playoffs. (It sounds a whole lot like baseball.)

 

 

2. Happy for Trent Dilfer? A breath of fresh air? Watching a complete bumbling idiot QB win a Super Bowl because he showed up that day? Are you serious? The Ravens, Bucs, and a few other teams even making the Super Bowl has completely DE-legitimized it...it is WORTHLESS to win in this era of "Feel good" NFL politics. The Pats were simply the best .500 team for a few seasons and shot their wad. They just sucked a little less than everyone else.

 

Many people feel that the Ravens had the best defense of all-time that year. Yet because one of their 22 starting positions was manned by an average/decent player, their Super Bowl win is no-longer legitimate?

I think that if the only way you can enjoy football is to watch superstar quarterbacks throw lots of touchdowns, you should go find another sport to watch.

I mean, according to you...all the teams suck and the Super Bowl is worthless. Why are you still watching?

 

3. Team players? What team...the Pats are already half broken up..... the NFL had to step in and "fix" the problem. The crime? Winning and being good. Sorry about that.....

 

Yeah, heading into the season with NO stakes, NO top team to knowck off, and NO teams staying intact really does set things up for an intriguing season. It is completely stoopid to "reset" everything every year .... how the hell is that "good"?

 

The Pats are half broken up because those players decided they cared more about money than winning, and left. That would have happened with or without a salary cap. The only difference is, only about 10 percent of the NFL would have had the money to stockpile go grab those players.

 

 

Honestly, I don't understand why any of you NFL fans would want to see the salary cap disappear:

 

1. As someone has already said, salaries would go up quicker and higher than ever before. And who do you think will take that hit? The billionaire owners? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That goes straight into our ticket prices, concessions, NFL Sunday ticket packages, merchandise, video game and everything else we can think of.

 

2. Some teams will inevitably be forced to shut down completely, because they simply could not afford to compete. Guess what? Money works the same, whether you have a little or a lot. No matter how rich an owner is, there is no way they will agree to run a team without making a profit. That's not greed, that's just common sense.

 

3. The league will no longer have an equal playing field.

Sure, the big budget teams won't win every single year, but they will be competitive 90 percent of the time.

At the same time, the low budget teams won't stink every year, but they will struggle 90 percent of the time.

Yes, things like coaching and smart general management have a big impact on who wins. But the teams that can afford to pay the most star players will be starting with a big advantage.

[ROCKET 0]

The reason why you don't have these power house teams of yester year is not only the cap prohibiting it. Since expansion to 32 teams the talent pool is thinned out. A no-cap 28 team league would be an absolute farce just like MLB. With that system the small market teams could never afford to be competitive.I love the idiots that say just spend and you can compete. Why don't you go out and compete with the Jones' who have yachts and Lamborghinis too? The small market teams barring a miracle every 30 years would be focked. Yeah but what about the crapass teams like Cincy who will never win even with a cap? And no more dynasties? How about 3 out of 4 SB's? It's no surprise this arguement is fueled by moronic baseball fans of teams like the Yankees. MLB is legit and I have some bridges for sale too

[Great White Hope 0]

Let me start out by saying that the cap ultimately is probably good for football.

 

The argument that ticket prices for a football game is less than baseball:

 

NY Giants - $75 per ticket (cheapest seat in the house)

NY Yankees - $10 per ticket (cheapest seat in the house)

 

Not sure of the cost for other cities, but 7.5 times the cost to go to a football game seems a bit excessive to me. The owners in the NFL are getting rich because of the salary cap.

 

I would not pay to go to a Giants game, but I would go if I was offered a free ticket, and I would argue that most people would have a similar opinion on this.

 

Other issues with cap:

Phil Simms should not have been cut by the Giants when he was, and his football playing career ended because of the cap.

 

It is going to really suck this year to be forced to watch the Jets every week this year. Unless I decide to get Direct TV. Oh yeah, that's another cost which has been passed on to football fans, especially fantasy football fans.