Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RoadLizard

Why is there still a salary cap?

Recommended Posts

Legit question in this day age when teams and owners are making money hand over fist in the NFL  The idea that some teams cant spend money on players is extremely antiquated.  Alls this salary cap does is force teams to cut or trade players that they really want to keep, breaks up good teams & I really dont know what benefit the salary cap brings anymore.  Like the VCR or the rotary phone - the cap has seen its usefulness disappear.

All the teams have plenty of money they can spend.  If anything, Id be fine with allowing the cap to be exceeded and then you pay a luxury tax like they do in baseball.  I dunno - just tired of cap problems, rampant free agency, teams breaking up, etc.  You cant buy a damned jersey with a player name on it anymore. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is part of the CBA.  It's a way players can guarantee they get a percentage of revenues (because I believe there is also a minimum spend, too - I'm sure owners wouldn't agree to a minimum spend w/o a cap).   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the owners don't want to pay more in salaries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RoadLizard said:

The idea that some teams cant spend money on players is extremely antiquated.  Alls this salary cap does is force teams to cut or trade players that they really want to keep, breaks up good teams

that is the purpose.

the League wants parity.   That means that teams close to the cap who spend their money stupidly inevitably get punished in the end for the irresponsible signing.

and powerhouse teams can only stay together for so long.

so your dynasties are not as long lasting unless the team makes some real good moves to stay on top.   Even then..... not totally likely

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think its a hard cap.  its a luxury tax.   sure it does to some degree limit spending of the top teams, but if the cap only truly affects a small percentage of the teams, then its not going to be very effective.

you need at least 1/4 to 1/3 of the teams feeling they need to get rid of players when the salary is too high.   Thats when you see parity in the league.   at that point almost any well coached and managed team who can do a good job of drafting and developing talent should have a decent shot at winning the world series at some point.   

if you look at the salary structure there likely are only 2 or 3 teams that actually spend to the cap (though I have not looked recently so correct me if I am wrong)

that wont fix anything.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlimited money doesn't work. It turns every team into a powerhouse and the fans would probably be depressed more often; because their "team" choked when they were the "best".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2023 at 11:37 PM, IGotWorms said:

So why hasn’t baseball flourished?

Seriously? 🤣

Because it's boring as sh!t

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, polecatt said:

Seriously? 🤣

Because it's boring as sh!t

Maybe in part because 25 teams can’t afford to field an all star team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Maybe in part because 25 teams can’t afford to field an all star team?

Perhaps that's part of it. Just having one top notch league is a big issue too.

If you really want to see how it works without salary caps and real free agency though, just look to soccer. There are multiple leagues all over the world that can pay players top dollar.

Of course it helps that it's a global game. I don't know that anything like is on the horizons for the NFL or MLB, but it's just a matter of time before basketball is similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, polecatt said:

Seriously? 🤣

Because it's boring as sh!t

15 minutes of action in a 3 hour game?  how can you say its boring?   oh yeah..... never mind....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ray_T said:

15 minutes of action in a 3 hour game?  how can you say its boring?   oh yeah..... never mind....

I can't tell if you are actually talking about football.  I mean a fast paced team may run about 80 plays per game.  If the average play is 7 seconds, that's 560 seconds total - even rounding that up to 600 seconds is only 10 minutes of actual action.  That would be 20 minutes of actual action if both teams played at that pace (unlikely).  Most of the game time is eaten up by guys getting off the pile, subbing in, and out and huddling up, not to mention victory formations and so forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Showboat said:

I can't tell if you are actually talking about football.  I mean a fast paced team may run about 80 plays per game.  If the average play is 7 seconds, that's 560 seconds total - even rounding that up to 600 seconds is only 10 minutes of actual action.  That would be 20 minutes of actual action if both teams played at that pace (unlikely).  Most of the game time is eaten up by guys getting off the pile, subbing in, and out and huddling up, not to mention victory formations and so forth.

I guess he could be 🤣

Football though, it's a steady paced game. They take time off between plays, but it's never more than about 30 seconds or so. So it's not like you're bored for long.

Baseball though, it could be 15 minutes between anything exciting really happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ray_T said:

15 minutes of action in a 3 hour game?  how can you say its boring?   oh yeah..... never mind....

Yeah, I will say it's gotten a little better now that they have a pitch clock. No more slow poke pitchers who make a 3 hour game last 5 hours.

I actually saw one where they pitcher used it to his advantage and started to pitch as soon as the batters hit the box. Sped things up considerably!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Showboat said:

I can't tell if you are actually talking about football.  I mean a fast paced team may run about 80 plays per game.  If the average play is 7 seconds, that's 560 seconds total - even rounding that up to 600 seconds is only 10 minutes of actual action.  That would be 20 minutes of actual action if both teams played at that pace (unlikely).  Most of the game time is eaten up by guys getting off the pile, subbing in, and out and huddling up, not to mention victory formations and so forth.

sorry I didnt realize I was unclear.  I was talking baseball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baseball was meant to be a leisurely game. Problem is we don’t have the time or the patience in this crazy modern world 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without a salary cap, the NFL would probably be similar to MLB with dynasty teams. But middle- and low-payroll teams winning Titles occasionally.

Only fans of dynasty teams like that system.  Everyone else in America hates the stink'n Yankees.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×