Greed in the NFL

[ADeadSmitty]

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?

[Sunstroke]

My point: every year you have teams you can count on. Those teams draft well, groom well, spend well.

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.

[gocowboys31]

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.

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.

[Jim Gray]

I'm sure if you dolphin fans had an owner like synder or jones you wouldnt be crying the blues.

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.  

[Phishfan]

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.

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.

[gocowboys31]

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.  

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.

[Phishfan]

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.

[Sunstroke]

Cowboys,
I am almost speechless.

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.

[jtex316]

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.

[ADeadSmitty]

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.

[jtex316]

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.

[Dave Gray]

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.

[ADeadSmitty]

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.

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.

[Phishfan]

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. 

Only people who lived under rocks.

[Sunstroke]

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.