The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Not sure how true this is, but here are my thoughts on the salary cap.

The current stand off between the owners and players over the collective bargaining agreement is complicated by several owners who are trying to undermine the negotiation in hopes of scraping the cap.  The owners, Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder, could then use their much larger revenue resources to sign the best players regardless of the team payroll.  The NFL will be just like MLB, with a few "haves" and a bunch of "have nots".  The system virtually assures that big market/big money teams are alway in the running for the championship, while small market/little money teams are pretty much locked out.  Yankee fans (who love the system in baseball) will point out that the Yankees don't always win, but anyone with an ounce of sense knows that a team that spends 4X as much money and has 11 all stars is going to have an advantage that other teams will struggle to overcome.

That the NFL might end up in a similar situation makes me sick.  I love the competitive balance of the NFL, and based on the success of the league, so do most other people.  Football has overtaken baseball as America's number 1 sport, which is a distant second.  I think the main reason is because most fans don't feel that the baseball system is fair.  The competition is unbalanced and it offends our sense of fair play.  Add in free agency and the resulting shifting rosters, massive salaries, strikes, steroids, and a team owner who is also commissioner and it's no surprise that many people are turned off.

Are Jones and Snyder so greedy that they would support a system that benefits them, but eventually would seriously damage the league?  Of course, the answer is yes.  As a fan, I hope the other owners and the commissioner don't allow this to happen.   The NFL has a great thing going.  Don't let a couple of ass-clown owners kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

I'm with you UK. The NFL has taken over the #1 sport in this country and a lot of it has to do with the parity on the field.

parity= mediocrity.


The NFL may be thriving as far as economics, but as far as on field product it stinks. Also it just isnt jones and synder who are opposed to the revenue sharing. The NFL prospered 75 years before the cap, and will continue to prosper. So please spare me of all the doom & gloom if no deal is reached.

I'd much rather wacth a dominant team win year after year with great players, than wacth a watered down product.


This article pretty much sums up my feelings on the NFL.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/stephen_cannella/03/03/the.rant/

Thank you.  Even most playoff games were complete duds, with a couple exceptions.  And then the exciting games between the "top teams" were marred with mistake filled play (see Indy-Pitt).

You say watching one team win year after year is more appealing than a watered down product. I say that is what the watered down product would be.

I beg to differ. You want to know what so called parity gives you. Half of the QB's in this league stink, by week 8 0r 9 more than half of teams are looking forward to the draft and free agency. Ohh yes this NFL is so great, their where 10 coaching vacancy's this offseason.


Jusy my opinion but the quality of play isnt the same as in prior years. It's all because of salary cap. I'm sure if you dolphin fans had an owner like synder or jones you wouldnt be crying the blues.

Every league needs a great, dominant dynasty to TRULLY succeed, and go down in history.  Like the 80's 49'ers, and the early 90's Cowboys.  Or, like the 1990's Chicago Bulls.

That's why the Yankees actually helped out baseball from 1996-2000, by their sheer dominance.  Everyone would either turn to root for the Yankees, or to root against them in any way, shape, or form.  

Hate is a lot stronger then Love.

There is something to be said for every team going into a season with a "we could do this" attitude.  But there is something also to be said for coming into a season KNOWING that you can count on certain teams to be GREAT.  That has stopped.

Baseball is a great example:  People knew coming into '05 that Boston / New York / L.A. Angels / Braves would be very strong teams.  NO ONE saw the Indians coming on the way they did, nor did anyone think a 60 million dollar budget White Sox would win the world series. 

The MISPERCEPTION is that baseball is dominated by large market / big money teams.  That perception is starting to shift.  Attendance is up across the boards, as are television ratings.  In the past five seasons there have been several "dark horse" teams win the World Series (Marlins, Angels and Diamondbacks being the notables).

Football is starting to feel like a free for all.  You simply can't put your finger on ANY team and that is a bit too much.  There is something to be said for consistency.  Why has this happened?  One reason:  wagering.  The NFL is dominated by it and with parity comes the "close to impossible" win / loss margain.

Baseball, for all it's faults, has plenty of teams that are right in the middle of things all the way up to the end. 

How is the lack of a salary cap going to affect the level of QB play? Your arguments make little sense. By they way, maybe you should study Wayne's resume. The guy isn't afraid to spend money. That's one of the reasons we are continually over the cap every year.

I wanted to add in a response to your week 8 or 9 comment also. That is half way through the season. Do you not pay attention to other sports? Half way through the season there will also be NBA, MLB, NHL teams who don't stand a chance and are thinking about the offseason as well.

Saying that unexpected teams win the World Series is no argument against the claim that baseball is tilted toward big-money teams. The World Series winner is determined in three consecutive playoff series. In a collection of games that small, of course anything can happen. The way to understand whether there's parity in baseball is to look at division winners (i.e. teams with the most wins). The Braves have won FOURTEEN (or whatever it is) consecutive NL East championships! Is it because of good management? Partly. Is it because TBS broadcasts send the Braves' revenue through the roof? Mostly. When was the last time someone other than the Yankees or Red Sox won the AL East? And when was the last time the Royals or Tigers even had a chance? I mean, even on Opening Day?

Maine, jtex, and gocowboys, I don't think it's a coincidence that you like the "on-field product" so much better when there's no parity. You're Red Sox, Giants, and Cowboys fans respectively, all big-market, high-revenue teams. You'd be singing a different tune if you were Devil Rays or Arizona Cardinals fans.

Just what is so great about seeing one team completely dominate the rest of the league -- assuming you're not that team's fan? Wow, what a great "on-field product": one all-star team humiliating a JV team. Fun! Look, starting in the late 80s and continuing until now, the NFL established itself as the #1 sport. During this same period, basketball and baseball went into the toilet. Why do you think that is?

Also, I don't see what wagering has to do with parity. All wagers are made against the spread. Lines are made up for any game, whether it involves evenly-matched teams or not. You don't need parity for betting to be popular.

I'm calling you on out-right bullshit here.

The Giants SUCKED for ever in the 90's, except in the very early 90's.  They were freaking 4-12 two seasons ago - they WERE the Arizona Cardinals!!

I don't care if my teams are consistent dog-shit every year - I would like to see a team,  like the Patriots, just run amuck and win 9 titles.  Believe me, you hate it, but every league needs a dynasty of a franchise to TRULLY and REALLY attain crazy levels of success, like when Jordan and the Bulls romped through the 90's.

The "team oriented, no-all stars" thing is DEAD.  It was in for a few years, with all these small-market, Team First - Individual Second, never say die attitude teams winning everything.  We are now in dire need of a mega-superstar becoming above and beyond the best player in his league and ultimately taking his team to multiple consecutive championships.  Not just in the NFL - but all sports.

Tom Brady seems to be the guy who can do it.  The Patriots need to go 14-2, and wipe everyone off the face of the Earth in the playoffs, and win the next 3 titles.

I think it's interesting to compare the Marlins to the Yankees.  When the Marlins won their first world series, they did it with a combination of good front office moves, good player development and MONEY.  They had the 4th highest payroll that year and still they were considered a "dark horse" because other teams were outspending them by a significant amount.  

The difference between the Marlins and the Yankees is that the Marlins are not able to maintain that spending and have to follow a model where the club builds a team basically from scratch until they are competitive and then they bring in some high priced free agents to make a 1 or 2 year run.  Win or lose, they have to tear the team apart because the payroll isn't sustainable.  The Yankees, Red Sox and Braves (and a few others) can just throw money at the top players year, after year, after year.  Am I the only one that finds it strange that you have a competitive system where a couple of teams have a built in advantage that allows them to dominate?  The Yankees have 26 championships, with the next team winning 9.  Maybe it's just me, but system offends my sense of fair play.

I agree that dynasties can be good for the game.  Even with cap, New England has been able to win 3 of 4.  Doesn't that qualify as a dynasty?.  The Steelers might be the next dynasty, or maybe Denver or Miami or Seattle or........well, it could be almost any team.  What chance do the Pirates have of building a dynasty?   I would also argue that for the most part, you know which NFL teams will be good and who will be a dog.  Instead of money deciding, it's determined by a good front office and a good coaching staff.  

If people love a dynasty and hate parity, then why is the NFL so much more popular than baseball?  I respect your opinions and accept that many people feel the same way (although I have to say that the ones I talk to are Yankee or Red Sox fans).  It's my feeling that baseball championships are bought and that cheapens the game for me.  In the NFL, a franchise can win by being smart and having a good plan.  In MBL, you can win by being rich.   I like the NFL model better.

Every team needs a dynasty to attain crazy levels of success? While the NFL has "suffered" through a couple decades of parity, it has become the top sport in the country by far. And while Jordan and the Bulls dominated in the NBA, the NBA's popularity went in the toilet. History supports the very opposite of your point.

Huh?  What?  Let's see.  "Yes, small market teams have won the World Series.  But what is important is who wins the division."

I think my eyes are going to start to bleed soon.

You seem to bring up Atlanta an awful lot, stating that they are a "high money team."  In 2005 Atlanta had the 10th highest payroll at $85,148,000.  Four teams below them were within $10,000,000.  The New York Mets - they are in that division, right?  They had a payroll of $104,770,139.

So shouldn't THEY win the division, based on your logic?

The Phillies had the fourth largest payroll.  Didn't make the playoffs.

The Dodgers had the fifth highest payroll.  Didn't make the playoffs.

The Giants had the 7th highest payroll.  Didn't make the playoffs.

The Cubs had the 8th highest payroll.  Didn't make the playoffs.

Seattle had the 9th highest payroll.  Did they even field a team last year?

So let me get this straight.  Out of the MLB's top ten highest payrolls, 50% of those teams didn't make the playoffs.  Of the five that did NOT make the playoffs, only ONE of those teams even broke the .500 mark.

Houston was 12th and they were in the LCS.

Chicago was 13th and they won it all.

San Diego was 17th and they won the division.  Over the 5th highest payroll in the bigs.

Eight teams in MLB makes the playoffs.  HALF of those that did last year were not in the top 10 in total payroll.  

And shame on any team spending less than 50 million dollars on total payroll.  That's a flat out insult to the fans that buy tickets to those games.  

This isn't confined to last year.  Would you like to take my word for it, or shall I go through the list of teams over the past five years that make the playoffs and / or have won the World Series that are NOT within striking distance of the top payroll teams in Major League Baseball.

Who gives a shit if Kansas City sucks?  They spent $36,000,000 total last year.  They received $16,000,000 million ALONE from the Angels, Sox and Yankees.  How much of that did they stick into player payroll?

ZERO.

Every league will have owners that don't do jack shit to improve their stance.  See in football the Arizona Cardinals.  Basketball the Clippers.  Baseball the (former World Champion) Kansas City Royals.

Facts are facts, and when talking about baseball in this instance, yours do not hold water.

My point:  every year you have teams you can count on.  Those teams draft well, groom well, spend well.  And every year you can count on half of the playoff field, if not more, coming from "small market, low budget teams."  I don't know why that is such a bad thing.

Joe, I'm curious to know what you think about the late Wellington Mara?  While a co-owner of the Giants, he did a lot to shape the current philosophy in the NFL and was praised for making decisions that would benefit the league, instead of just his team.  Mara was a visionary that helped make the NFL America's number 1 sport.   I have great respect for the man and it saddens me that a couple of greedy owners might be able to undo his legacy so quickly.

Maine, your own post is full of inconsistencies. You start out by saying that payroll doesn't matter. But then you say shame on the Royals for not spending enough. WTF? That makes no sense.

I don't really get your stats. You say half of baseball's top-ten payrolls didn't make the playoffs, suggesting that five top-ten payroll teams did make the playoffs. Then you say half of playoff teams last year were not in the top-ten payroll, suggesting that only four of top-ten payroll teams made the playoffs. But whatever. Last thing I need is Dave Gray jumping in, telling me I'm just arguing "semantics."

Even if it's just four: the fact that four out of ten playoff teams are in the top third in payroll doesn't suggest to you that money matters? Wow.

It doesn't even matter. Your main point is money doesn't matter in baseball. Next line is "shame on any team spending less than 50M." Why shame on them, if money isn't important?

I don't mind the "spend well" part of that, but when they just "spend more"...that's when I say "I'd like to kick Steinbrenner in the sack now, thank you."

I don't want that kind of "let's see who can buy the most players" crap in the NFL. I've heard your reasoning, Maine, and I still say a salary cap with ridiculously high penalties for non-compliance is the NFL I want to watch on Sunday. I don't want to see who can buy the best football team, I want to see who can build the best team from a level financial playing field for all.

The lack of a salary cap would inable teams to put better pieces around their QB, which would inable him to be more productive. Do you think david carr would be more productive if he had an offensive line, a second WR, a tight end. He cant have all of the luxuries because of the cap. Troy aikman had irvin, smith, harper novacek, and a great offensive lineman because they were able to stay together. Cohesiveness and continuity my friend. Do you think marino would've been able to put up the numbers he did without one of the mark's brother's or a dwight stephensen protecting him, because i assure you joe robbie wouldn't have been able to afford all of those offensive weapons in a salary cap area.


And yes i do wacth other sports, but your argument is that the NFL has parity and equality. Half of the teams in a league where the playing field is equal shouldn't be out of playoff contention by week 8 or 9. So whether you have a cap or not, you'll still have your have's and have not's.

In addition the cap affects QB play, because organizations are forced to play young QB's who arent ready because they recieved a huge signing bonus. Look at the buffalo they were basically forced to sacrifice an entire season so they could try and develop j.p losman. Teams no longer have the patience to stick with a young QB because of the pressure to win NOW. Qb's in the salary cap era have either 3 years to get it done or their history because of the huge investment. Qb's today are described as "CARETAKERS"..........JUST DONT MAKE A MISTAKE..........MANAGE THE GAME.  It's disgusting. What ever happened to going out and winning a game.


Again no cap makes for a better on field product.

Do you really think that I'm so petty that I would like the system as long as it was the Dolphins winning?  You've got me pegged wrong.  I love the NFL for the competition.  I love that every team, including mine, has a chance.  I love that it's a well run organization that wins, not just a big wallet.

You can have Jones and all his money.  And if he gets his way, you can have all the trophies he buys for the Cowboys.  

That is your opinion of what is needed. I would dare say for every person who agrees with you I can find one to disagree, maybe even more.

So i guess the dolphins vs buffalo in the 90's werent good competition, or the dolphins vs the jets in the 80's. Name me any great rivalry pre salary cap, and ill tell you they werent great because the teams were bought. They were great because they were built thru the draft's, players bonded on the field,execution was more precise. Other than deion sanders who did jones buy? Those cowboy teams were built thru the draft, not on wild spending spree's.


My argument all along has been id rather wacth a dominant team who drafts, and scouts well and has the ability to keep players they drafted and developed.

You seem to fixiated on jones and synder, their are about 9 other high revenue owners who are opposed to this deal. Why should any high revenue club  share their profits with and owner like bill bidwell who wont spend it on his ball club, but instead pocket the money. That's my main problem with revenue sharing. I WANT BIDWELL putting the resources from the synders' and the jones' into his team, not into his pocket.

Cowboys,
I am almost speechless. Let's go in segments.

1. You say no salary cap would create better QB play by getting better players around them. Yes that could work, for a few teams. You seem to forget that would deplete the remaining teams making them worse. We aren't arguing about what is best for one team. We are talking about what is best for the league.

2. You talk about Robbie not affording the players during a cap era. Joe Robbie was notoriously known for underspending when it came to salaries. I think the team would have done better then had a cap evened out the playing field.

3. You brought up teams out of contention. I just pointed out it happens in all sports so we can agree there.

4. You talk about these huge signing bonuses. Thats why many of us would also support a Rookie limit. What you described is almost mismanagement of the salary cap. Rookies should not be making more money than established players.

I am as well...GoCowgirls has no interest in seeing "what's best for the NFL" come to pass nearly as much as he wants to see "what's best for Jerry 'nip-tuck' Jones and the Dallas Cowboys."

Salary caps ensure an equal financial footing to build a team. Anything other than that and you may as well disband the NFL and replace it with the WDNYFL (washington dallas new york football league) and only have 4-5 teams.

I'd rather cheer for middle school badminton than a WDNYFL abomination.

UK, I actually don't know much about Wellington Mara, other then he's dead right now, and that while alive, he owned the Giants.  That's really it.

I just really feel that a good 4 to 5 or 6 year dynasty by one team, with one ultra-mega-superstar on it's roster, would:

1. Increase interest
2. Have fans watching every playoff game "just to see the team they now hate lose / just to see their new favorite team win".

We all make fun of bandwagon jumpers, but it's definitely a big part of things.  Some will jump on the Steelers bandwagon now.  But, with let's say a Peyton Manning, if he were to all of a sudden take the Colts to 3 straight Super Bowl titles, Manning would be a God, and would increase everything - revenue, interest in the game, ratings, jersey sales, tickets (home and away) - the same way a Shaq & Kobe L.A. Lakers game would always draw gigantic numbers, or a Michael Jordan team, or the Yankees / Red Sox.

While I'm indifferent to parity in the NFL, I think that every decade needs to have it's own gigantic, icon-sized figure of the game. 

I know you can't compare Sports, and it's a rocky road to do so, but I'm gonna do it anyways.  For example - Cycling.  Before the late 1990's, no one in America even knew this was an organized sport.  Enter Lance Armstrong, and cycling's popularity, even if it's only for the 3 weeks of the year, probably goes up 10 to the power of 1,000.  Lance Armstrong is, in fact, a dynasty of his sport.  No Lance Armstrong = zero interest in Cycling.

Yes this is the most radical comparison available, but it shows that a completely unstoppable dynasty makes the popularity of the sport explode, whether you now love him or hate his cancerous guts.  Just like Golf & Tiger Woods.  I never even liked Golf until Tiger, and now whenever he's on the final weekend and either in the lead or anywhere within a remote striking distance, I watch, just like I watched the last two rounds of the Doral.

Total and complete domination in sports is very entertaining to me.

Lance Armstrong generated interest in cycling because he was an American, not because he was dominant. Before Armsrong, there were other riders that dominated cycling. (Not to the same extent, but still dominant). And who was watching cycling when Indurain was dominant? No one.

So you looked up one dude on the internet that no-one's ever heard of before.  Great. 

And BTW, Lance Armstrong and Cycling got popularity because he was dominant.  There are plenty of scrub Americans on the cycling circuit, I'm pretty sure of that. 

I don't ever watch Formula 1 racing, but I know one name that is synonimous with it - Michael Schumacker.  Dominant.

With Armstrong and Tiger, you are choosing only "sports" that have one athlete...not team sports.  Besides, these are also situations where one person's play does not directly affect the other players.  Cycling and golf are "sports" where the athlete competes against himself.

I can't stand baseball.  I hate the Yankees, but unlike you say, Joe, I don't watch them.  I can't stand to watch one second of a Yankees game, because it's like watching Joe Frasier fight a retarded kid.  (actually, I would watch that)

I believe that there are teams in the NFL that can't win the Super Bowl any year.  But there aren't any teams that can't make a run.  ...even Arizona has a shot at getting in the playoffs.  That's the beauty of the NFL.

I do think that there are some things that need ironing out, that will allow teams to keep their groomed players.  But no cap would make for a less entertaining league, for me anyways....and at the end of the day, it's all ust entertainment.

Dude you are just hurting your case. You say a dominant team or performer makes people watch a sport. But then you say even though Schumacher is dominant, you don't watch Formula 1 racing. By the way, no one else does either.

Only people who lived under rocks.

Using Lance as an example on either side is probably a bumpy analogy. Lance became popular because:

1) He's American in an "America vs the World" sport.
2) He overcame a life-threatening illness that most folks in America already have some experience or familiarity with: Cancer
3) He became extremely dominant in his sport.

That's not what we'd be dealing with here. If you go without a salaray cap and tilt the tables toward the "I'm rich, biatch" large market owners, then what you'll see is fan interest in the other markets drop through the floor. Why should the Carolina Panthers fans care about the WDNYFL when their team doesn't have an equal chance at the talent out there? Why should the Vikes fans?

Thank God this will never happen...we'll have a new deal in place this week, and then we can stop trying to hypothesize what a post-apocalyptic NFL (Steinbrenneresque?) world would look like.

Okay - my point is fairly clear.  I never once stated anything about the salary cap and people are trying to work that into my post, no wonder you are confusing yourselves.

I think that a cap is a good thing.  My entire stance comes from this:  along the way the NFL has made mistakes and the product is watered down because of it.

Further - my stance with money is this:  you need to spend money to win.  You don't need to be a two hundred million dollar team, nor even a one hundred and fifty million dollar team.  But you can not spend thirty million dollars on player payroll and then bitch that "we can't compete."

Smitty stated a handful of times that the Braves are the class of their division and it's because of their payroll.  That is frankly incorrect, and his statement that "the same teams win the same divisions every year and it's because they spend more" is also incorrect.  The Braves are outspent EVERY YEAR by the Mets.  The A's and Seattle are both recent winners of the AL West, and the Angels outspent them.  Almost no one spends more than the Dodgers, and I can't remember the last time that they won their division.  Chicago Cubs outspend everyone in their division and don't win it.  Baltimore has a high payroll and hasn't won anything in a long time. 

If you are talking about the AL EAST only, sure - the two highest spenders are winning.  But you also have two teams that have two of the lowest payrolls in the majors in that division;  the Jays and Rays.  So it's Boston and NYY's fault that those two teams don't spend (or haven't)?

Nothing is more frustating to hear "nothing is better than the NFL, and it's because of the cap."  Those same point are the first ones to point at MLB and say "only spenders win, it's not fair."

My EXACT POINT - and this shouldn't be confusing - is that half of the teams making the playoffs are high spenders and half ARE NOT.  To speak further to my point - ANY TEAM that spends at LEAST 50 million dollars has the chance to put a successful team on the field that is capable of winning the World Series...and HAS.

And funny - in 2005:  68% of MLB's teams that spent at least 50 million dollars were still in the chase for a playoff spot on August 15th - with only a month left in the season.

Parity does not equal balance, nor does it equal quality.  Right now the NFL's product is not the highest of quality.

Clear enough?

Taking all the specific teams and scenarios out of the mix, because I think they muddy the point I was trying to make. I want a league where one team cannot blatantly outspend another team in order to stockpile as much of the available talent as possible. I agree that teams that underspend have no right to bitch about the big-spenders, and would even be in favor of putting a "minimum cap" on there to make sure that some of the small market teams use their cut of the sharing and TV monies as it was intended...to help those smaller market clubs field a more competitive team.

Here is my question:

Anti-cap people state that a dynasty is "good for the league."  Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't NE just win 3 out of 4 Super Bowls with a cap in place, with a highly marketable young star at the most high-profile position?

The '70s Steelers didn't do that.
The '80s 49ers didn't do that.

So what's the problem, then?  Why do we need to eliminate the cap to create dominant teams, when we have an example of a "dominant" team in the salary cap era?

Answer:  because lack of a cap allows big-market teams to compensate for poor management and decision-making by throwing money at the problem.

I don't claim to be the biggest baseball fan, but doesn't NYY throw barrels of money at high-priced free agents every year, many of whom turn out to be busts?  How is it remotely fair that a team can spend such vast sums of money on completely ineffective players and still win their division every year?  Where's the accountability?

As far as the argument of NFL teams buying and keeping more talent... where is this talent coming from?  If Randy Moss, Marvin Harrison, Chad Johnson, Steve Smith, Tony Gonzales, and Antonio Gates all play for WAS and DAL, where does that leave OAK, IND, CIN, CAR, KC, and SD?  Sorry, but 4 "great" teams and 28 pathetic ones does not a great product make.

Yes, this year was putrid.  Sometimes that happens.  But looking at the overall quality of the playoff field in the past 10 years, I don't see a basis for an argument that the game is watered down to the point of mediocrity.  Even in the salary cap era, the GB, DEN, and STL championship teams would have matched up against any pre-cap-era team just fine.