Greed in the NFL

[Jim Gray]

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.

[Phishfan]

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.

[gocowboys31]

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/

[MaineDolFan]

parity= mediocrity.
The NFL may be thriving as far as economics, but as far as on field product it stinks.

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).

[Phishfan]

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.

[gocowboys31]

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.

[jtex316]

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.

[MaineDolFan]

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. 

[Phishfan]

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.

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.

[ADeadSmitty]

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.

[jtex316]

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.

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.

[Jim Gray]

In the past five seasons there have been several "dark horse" teams win the World Series (Marlins, Angels and Diamondbacks being the notables).

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.

[ADeadSmitty]

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.

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.

[MaineDolFan]

The way to understand whether there's parity in baseball is to look at division winners.

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.

[Jim Gray]

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.