So that makes circumventing the salary cap OK? I jokingly brought up that the Jets should let players open side businesses and get paid by the team, do you think it would be allowed if multiple teams started doing it? Not likely.
Is he really outside it? Puts up stud numbers every year. Dudes honestly Top 5 in this league. Only ones I'd put ahead of him are Brady, Rodgers, Brees, and Big Ben.
It depends on your expectation of the parity. The NFL never asserted parity in championships to my recollection. Just because a few teams end up winning the majority of the championships doesn't negate the fact that the rest of the teams have realistic chances to win year in and year out. We see it every year, teams having dramatically improved seasons and conversely dramatically worse, because if parity is creating improved teams it will also result in regressing teams. But none of that eliminates the potential for a few teams to dominate while the rest eb and flow.
Nobody gave a rats ass that three different teams won the NCLS when the Yankees won three straight World Series from 1998-2000, which was the battle cry of all Salary Cap apologists.
Except those three different teams all had high payrolls and had all been in the playoffs multiple times. You aren't making a sound argument.
The 1998 Padres last made the playoffs in 1996, getting swept in the NLDS. Prior to that, their last playoff appearance was in 1984 The 2000 Mets had last made the playoffs in 1999, losing to the Braves in the NLCS. Prior to that, their last playoff appearance was in 1988. Where exactly is my argument not sound? The NFL has a Salary Cap. MLB does not. Both have has as many different teams as their champions (13) since the NFL introduced the Salary Cap in 1994.
NFL needs more of a soft cap to allow teams to spend more on home grown players. Too often where teams have very good players that they can't keep because they need to play their top guys... or you have great teams that get completely dismantled because they can't pay all of their players who are about to have expiring contracts. It adds to the whole you need a HOF QB to be consistently good for a long time thing. Teams who don't have one of those all-time great QBs can't keep their teams together for long enough to consistently make a run. Whereas a team like the Patriots can plug any scrub in there and make them look good with Brady while just rebuilding their defense.
I love how fashionable it is these days to decide what other people "need". Remember, by the way, how we were told he had to litigate Deflategate to the bitter end because he owed it to his brother players in the NFLPA? If he's shaving millions of dollars off the QB salary scale just because he doesn't "need" money, that's one super way to fuck your NFLPA brothers, their families, their pensions and everything else down the line. All because he has a hot wife who makes millions herself? Not likely.
Except you are still arguing championships as the basis for parity when it is simply about being competitive. You simply are misunderstanding what is being evened by the cap. In regards to the Padres, they had the 9th highest payroll in 98, which is why they were competitive in a league without a cap. But they were the exception to the three teams the Yankees which you never want to base your arguments on. In the 90's high salaries drove competitiveness which is exactly the opposite of what you want to have happened to make your argument. The NFL evens salaries and thus evens competition. Nothing about that guaranteed success or championships.
But that's not what the NFL said. The whole reason to bring this about was parity, and the results prove that this model brings about no more parity than another sport which has no salary cap.
imagine what the pats would do if they could afford something other than a few scrubs to play with brady. soft cap o no cap,at this point, further helps the teams with good qbs more than it would help teams without them. the caps fine, problem is there are not 32 nfl qbs on the planet.
Regardless of their definition, there is absolutely no difference in the championship outcomes in the NFL and MLB since the NFL salary cap was initiated. Since 1994 (The year the cap started), the NFL has had 13 different champions, with the Patriots winning five titles Since 1994, Major League baseball has had 13 different champions, with the Yankees winning five titles. Is the NFL system really that much better?
You can't really compare baseball to football. Yeah, the Yankees can go out and spend a shit ton of money on a bunch of superstars, but because baseball outcomes are significantly affected by the performance of individuals, it is much easier to build a roster capable of winning. Take Moneyball for example. Using advanced analytics, DePodesta and Bean were able to identify what statistics showed a strong correlation with winning. Once that was figured out, everybody started doing it. And it works. That's what's creating parity in the MLB right now. The Yankees aren't dominant by any means and haven't been for years now. I doubt you'll see a team like the Yankees of the 1900's for a while. Maybe the Cubs, but they built their roster through scouting and development, not signing massive contracts. Their best players are homegrown. But that doesn't work in football. Football is more of a team game, where one player (exception QB) can't affect your winning percentage too much without help from his teammates. There is no WAR in football because it's impossible to calculate. There is no OBP and Slugging to create wins with. Coaching, scheming and team-building are much harder in the NFL. You need 22 starters and another 30 who can contribute in some way. Parity isn't lacking because of the salary cap. It's lacking because there is such a huge difference in how teams are managed and built. Some teams have the right guys (Pats, Ravens, etc), some don't.
It's not just the cap. The idea that having higher draft picks creates parity is another joke. Lower picks developed by a good organization is cheaper in the long run allowing really well coached teams to dominate crappy teams that continually draft high, do a crappy job in player development and pay more for less production. The cap favors the better teams because they develop players and get way more value out of their rosters than badly managed teams that need to draft stars before they destroy them with subpar coaching.
The general point I am making is that of the four major sports, none of them harp on the virtues of promoting the most "Parity" than the NFL. I flat out reject the notion that there is more parity in the NFL than any other league.
You are still not talking about parity. Parity has been discussed by the NFL as competitiveness not evening out championships. Parity doesn't save shitty organizations like the Browns from being shitty anymore than it prevents excellent organizations like the Pats from having long term success. Your argument for that matter completely doesn't understand what parity is.
