Greed in the NFL

[MaineDolFan]

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?

[Sunstroke]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.