I am all for the salary cap just like many others have said. If there is no cap it will be just like MLB. Eltimating half the of the teams before it even starts. Football is about to be ruined in the same way baseball is.
The NHL is a perfect example of a league that expanded out of control. The owners got greedy and sold franchises for cash. They also created a lot of roster spots real fast. Guess what they changed the supply and demand balance of players to roster spots in favor of the players and the players, those greedy bastards, decided since there was more demand for them they should get paid more.
My only point is that none of that would have happened if there was a cap in place like there is now. A cap prevents such out of control spending and expansion, or at the very least prohibits it to a great extent.
If the NFL turns into most other professional sports leagues that don't have a cap then i'm sad to say i'll probably stop watching football. The soccer leagues over here define whats wrong with salary cap less sport,Chelsea had won the Premiership before Christmas and Celtic have the Scottish league all wrapped up. I pray they can figure something out.
They should just get rid of the entire notion of owner operated franchises. Let the owners own the league and let the league run the teams share the revenue among themselves and the players, build the stadiums and control the product completely. If they over expand it's at their peril. By the way it was intresting that as soon as the NHL bailed on the players they were all ready to take a lot less money. That old supply and demand thing really kicked into gear during that one.
This notion that leagues have overexpanded, therefore having diluted the talent pool is so stupid. The facts are that there is a larger population to player ratio now than say the 60's, when most old timers (apparently with alzheimers) say the talent was so great. 1960 - 21 AFL/NFL teams - US pop. 175M 2006 - 32 NLF teams - US pop 300M Same can be said of the NHL and other leagues. The athletic talent today is the highest it has ever been.
I think a cap is crucial. Without it, Snyder and Jerry Jones and a few others would be completely out of control, and the NFL would lose quality teams like Green Bay, Buffalo, Carolina, a fwe others probably. I dont think the owners as a whole would allow for a cap free environment for any extended period of time. Once their profitability becomes threatened, they would lock out the players and get a set cap back to ensure that they make $$$$ which is what it is all about at the end of the day.
While the cap is important in keeping clowns like Snyder from trying to be the next steinbrenner, Revenue sharing is what keeps the NFL from looking like baseball. The NFLs revenue sharing deal was in place long before the cap and the only reason small market teams like Buffalo and Green Bay are still around. As long as there is revenue sharing the changes will not be dramatic
I'm against the cap. I have made my point many times before, so I'll just sumarize here. The cap does not level the playing field. It would, if everyone spent to the limit. But many teams don't. This is true in all sports. Yes, the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, and a small handful of other teams spend and spend and spend to win titles. Big deal! It's a better market. Is Yankee, Shea, or Fenway ever empty? Nope. Is Kansas City's park empty? Yup, more often than not. Even the Marlins, after twice winning the WS, could not get fans to come to the park. But we should bow to that, even though we are steadfastly loyal to our teams? Do the Cardinals sell out their seats? Do the Saints? Of all the basement teams in sports, any of them, how many of them sell out on a regular basis? And even when they have the money, do they spend it? For a few years in the late 90's if I remember correctly, Cincinnati was turning a good profit on the team, yet they steadfastly refused to spend the money on talented players. Again, we should have to suffer for that? If team ownership and its fans choose to let their teams languish, let them. At least in January, the 12 teams that are still playing will be truly competitive when the games are played.
I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. Baseball contracts for even 2nd tier talent is rediculous. That would come under control immediately, and the talent would spread out among the teams. I hate baseball, so I don't really care, but a salary cap is a good thing.
As long as there is reveunue sharing amongst the owners, then the playingfield is level. Also, the draft has proven to be the most effective way to build a quality football team. There is no amount of money a Snyder could paty to overcome that. I am against the salary cap. As a poster mentioned above, the cash strapped Steelers dominated in an uncapped era. They won because they had great drafts.
You are absolutely right the talent would spread out among the entire league and instead of 20 teams being awful and 10 being good you would have 30 awful teams because no matter how you spread it out there just aren't enough good players to go around.
If there was a growing supply of competitive talent as you suggest, tell me why prices for players have gone up instead of going down? If in fact the talent pool was increasing at a faster clip than expansion there would be absolutely no need for a salary cap as salaries would naturally go down, particularly in the NFL where you have a draft and effective ownership of players for most of their shelf life.
What? It's not as if there will be more players. Are you saying that good players would stop playing baseball because they can't get that extra $5M a year? What job would the best players flock to that pays them more? That to me is a ridiculous assertion. You have the same level of talent overall regardless, a salary cap simply changes the distribution. Right now, without the salary cap, you have maybe 5 major league teams, and the rest are all triple and double A teams. With a salary cap, instead of having that type of distribution, you have that talent spread out, so no team can possibly be "triple and double A" but no team is without it. If that's what you mean, I simply do not see the problem.
Without the CAP only the big markets would survive ,salary`s in those markets would be insane & season ticket prices would be equally insane..., You would no longer have tha parity in the league you have nownow I think there should be a clause that allows a bonus for loyalty to the same team where a team like the JETS can pick pick 2 veteren players each year that have at least 5 + years with the same team that their cap DOES NOT COUNT into the cap equation & you cannot use the same player 2 years in a row
Your analysis of supply and demand is silly. Each team has a set budget for salary. Whether that budget is set by the league (salary cap), or by each individual teams resources is irrelavant. That is the 'supply' in question. Not the players. There are 1600 or so players in the league. They divide up the salary pie, although not equally. That is how salaries go up or down. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with the talent level. The 1600th best player today would dominate in 1960. But he is still the worst player in the NFL today and therefore makes the league minimum, which is set by the salary pie (excellent with ice cream).
Not so. There is a huge difference between a team setting it's own budget, and the league setting it for them. As I posted earlier, in all major sports, there are teams, who no matter what the total cap allowance, will never come close to the spending limit. Whether that is from a lack of interest by fans, or by ownership is what is irrelevant. Is it okay that the Florida Marlins cleaned house, twice the winter after winning the World Series? Half of that was because fans don't bother to show up for games, the other half is that the owner like to turn a profit while his product is hot. Like I pointed out with Cincinnati, they had the money at one point in time, and chose not to spend it. In the long-term, it hurt the team with declining ticket sales. Fortunately for them, with so many chances at #1 guys in th draft, they have put enough talent on the field to compete. The question now is, what happens when Palmer and Johnson et al come up for free agency? Will they pay, or go back to scooping #1's every year? With all sports, without exception, you must pay to win. There is no way around it, and no amount of parity is going to change that.
The topic I was discussing was talent level driven salary escalation, not whatever you are babbling about.
