Said today the quality of FB in the NFL presently sucks & he thinks FB would be better off without a cap. I did not take him for a FB purist unril hearing that comment
You have to define quality. If you mean everyone is mediocre then he's right. There are no truly outstanding teams in football.
I heard Mort on Kay driving home last night. His position is he would rather see 6 or 7 great teams, than 20 good teams. He has a point. It's just that you get the feeling we wouldn't be one of them, and Miami would.
Mort said it & I presume he has a Email address @ ESPN so U have to ask him to define quality. I took it to mean that expansion has watered the product down from years ago, However that is JMHO of what he meant
To me it's exciting to know that you could beat any team any week. I really hated that the 7 teams that were great pretty much owned the rest of the league.
Making the comment at this time I don't think he was referring to expansion. More than likely he was making reference to the salary cap situation.
The NFL without a salary cap would be a disaster. You'd see a bunch of 63-10, 56-10 games... like 3-4 a week, and that's not fun to watch.
This is just not true. As long as the owners still equally share 80% of all revenue, then there will be competitve balance. Remember, the draft will attach a player to the team that chose him for at least foyur or five years. All the money in the world won't make a great deal of difference.
Chump 69 JETS WILL never WIN another SB as long as CHUMP writes his negative KARMA----WOODY is 0-6 CHUMP IS 0-38
Yo 134, isn't that Eds section, or is that next one over? I would think it would be annoying with him standing all game.
Yes he was but by saying that the quality is poorer today he had to be pointing to expansion for watering down the product. Agsin JMHO
Is that nor a fact that to dateWoody is 0-6 in bringing a championship to Hempstead? If I am incorrect please tell us when the championship occurred diring Woody's watch? Are you attempting to rewrite NYJ history also?
Am I missing something here? Even with a salary cap, haven't the Patriots won 3 of the last 5 Superbowls? Didn't the Cowboys win a few in the 90's and the 49ers a few in the 80's? Saying that a salary cap causes mediocrity and no truly outstanding teams seems pretty baseless to me.
That 20% would be a huge difference maker. HUGE. The Redskins, for instance, would spend 150M on salaries. Other teams would too. Those local revenues are out of control for some teams. Dallas sells all their own gear, which helps them make a ton of cash too. At least with a cap, those owners make the cash, but can't give it out except for bonuses. Even that's unfair. It should ALL be considered in the cap calculation.
But who are they going to spend that extra on? It's not like that many great players ever hit free agency. And history shows that free agents aren't a sure thing to perform at the highest level with their new teams. There was no salary cap before 1993. The sport was always competitve.
tis a fact --woody is 0-6 tis a fact you are 0-38 your negativity is the reason jets have not been back to the SB
If they based the cap on total combined revenue of all the teams but didn't share all the "local revenue" just included it in the over all cap, I'm sure the 8 or so high earning teams would be very happy with that.
