No doubt your analysis is brilliant as are you but even you can understand that reducing roster spots by dumping out the weak teams would result in the least talented players being pushed out of the league and create more competition for less over all dollars and salaries would decline and the product would improve.
Of course it would improve the talent per team, but why is the question. The games are better today than they have ever been. And the talent level per team is better than ever. I guess we could reduce the teams to 2 and just have the all-pros playing against each other every week. That would be swell, wouldn't it? But as for the salaries going down because of it, no way. If the dollars per team stayed the same, the salaries would be the same. More than likely, by removing the weakest franchises, the dollars per team would go up and players salaries would go up with it. The supply of money would go up and so would the player demand for it.
The point is, salaries increase based on demand for talent. Teams who are willing to spend to get top-tier talent drive the price upwards. If all teams had the same attitude toward spending as a team like the Bengals did, then the salaries would decline. Since there are teams willing to pay, the players can demand more. If you remember, the Texas Rangers are the ones who made Alex Rodriguez the richest player in sports a few years back. Yes, it was to the detrement of the team, but that is why he got the big payday. Someone was willing to pay for the talent. That's the supply and demand. The elite players are the supply, not the 8th stringers. The top-tier dictates what they will make, and you either pay up, or watch as someone else wins the shiny trophies.
Wrong. The budget for each team drives salary increases. The Yankees and the Sox have money to spend on players, so they spend it. It doesn't matter if the players are worth it talent-wise or not. Notice that no one is getting more money than ARod still. Why? There are players who could make a case that they are better or just a good. Because the budgets of the teams can't support it. That is what drives salaries.
Intresting that you think if we reduced the amount of teams the dollars per teams would go up and we would have all-pros playing against each other every week, yes I agree that would be swell wouldn't it. It beats watching a team with zero all-pro's making the playoffs, doesn't it? I don't argue that football players today aren't better although the elite players of the mid 60's and on would certainly be great today. I don't agree that the % of great or elite difference maker athletes have increased more than the general population of professional quality football players, you can almost argue that they have decreased but I don't really think it matters in this debate. As Alio pointed out it is the elite players that are in demand and while yes todays athletes are better the amount of elite players as a % of the players is not better and that is the real problem. If there wasn't a league minimum many NFL players today would be making less than they are now because there is an over supply of weak talent. In the real world players or employees of any sort demanding more money simply becuase their employer has more money with out having the clout to get it simply won't fly.
That is not really true. The reason salary has gone up is because of the economy. The economy on a whole is much better then years ago. The rich ownership of teams now have more money than the rich ownership 30 years ago. Also there is more money to be made, concession prices have increased dramatically, teams can merchandise worldwide, stadiums are bigger, tickets prices have increased dramatically, stadium naming rights, luxury boxes, TV rights, etc. All this have put more money into the pockets of the owners (those in larger markets more than others admittedly) and so they have more to spend.
If the budgets couldn't support it how did Arod get his contract? It was his percieved value at the time it had nothing to do with budgets.
It might concentrate the talent, but would not drive down salaries. The same amount of money is still avaible, but would be distribute to less players now. For example a top tier player says "I want x amount of dollars to play" the team says no, we will make due with a 2nd tier player. If that 2nd tier player is not there, the top tier player can say "Give me my money, who else are you going to get?" Less options means the players have the leverage not the ownership.
And the Rangers could not do anything else with that albatrose of a contract on their books. They could not sign any other quality players to put together a team to compete for the WS. Why do you think they were so eager to trade him? Their budget/finances could not support the contract. Why do you think that the only teams interested in that contract were larger market teams that could afford it? The Rangers were like kids in a candy store, they knew what they had, and spent more than they should have. It bit them in the ass.
The reason teams with no all-pros make the playoffs has more to do with percentages than overall talent level. When there were fewer teams, but the same # of players named all-pros, the percentage of all-pro to regular players was higher. As the # of teams increased the # of all-pros did not. The percentage of all-pros to regular players decreased. Therefore you will have less all-pros per team. But remember this does not mean the players are not just as good, but rather that the standard for making that team has increased. See above. It is perception not reality. The standard for being considered an elite player can changed, not the athletes themselves. I would say the percentage would be similar or higher today.
You're wrong, and I already showed why. Just because I keep using the Bengals as an example doesn't mean they are the only ones. Many teams, in every major sport, spend significantly less of their share of the cap, simply to hold onto more profit. It doesn't improve the team, or the league. It absolutely matters whether the player is worth it talent-wise or not. A-Rod got what he did, when he did, because he was, by most accounts, the best player in the sport. Texas obviously couldn't afford what they gave him. It handcuffed the team for years, so much so, that they were willing to give him away for the price of Alfonso Soriano, in the hopes that the salary savings would save the club. Was Penny really worth $64M, even at the time? 20/20 hindsight says no, but at the time, it was his percieved value to the organization. At the time, although some people questioned the amount, there weren't too many angry voices screaming about cap hell because of it. He was highly valued, so he got his cash. Obviously, we couldn't afford it. This is the state of sports. A premium is put on the top-tier of talent, and that drives salaries. Is it fair that Osi Umenyora, while having a damn fine breakout year last, is raising the price tag of John Abraham for us? No, not really, but that is the way it goes.
Texas budget couldn't support it. That is why he is a Yankee. The Rangers feeling was that he would increase the teams revenue therefore they could afford him. That was not the case. Therefore they had to trade him to a team that could afford it. It may have been his perceived value at the time, but not talent wise. As a commodity to increase revenue only.
I'm not saying what the the Rangers did with Arod was smart it was incredibly stupid but that doesn't change the fact that they had a percieved value for Arod and felt that he would go elswhere if they gave him a smaller offer. It also points out that there are many ways to skin a cat. Where I agree with Cinvis is companies in the end do have to live within an operating budget. Teams can choose to bid up a player or they can choose to go with a different mix of talent and spread out their payroll.
No you do not know that 15-20 teams do not have a chance. Ever hear of the Oakland Athletics? How about the Minnesota Twins? Or how about two of the last three World Series champions, the Chicago White Sox and Florida Marlins? You think SMART. You find the RIGHT players for your organization if you can't spend to get the top guys. You find some solution such as Moneyball, which places emphasis on what many people think are the key aspects of the game. There are ways around the big spenders. Of course the big spenders will always be up there, but hey, look at the Mets with the highest payroll in the NL for how many years running now? A lack of a salary cap would NOT ruin the NFL, but, for the record, I do like the cap.
Players are really going to see the effects of the budget this free agent period. Talent is not going to drive the salary market. 3 of the 5 (arguably) best RB's in the league are free agents this year. (Alexander, Edge and Jamal Lewis (still the best pure RB despite poor year). Are any of these guys going to get paid like top 5 RB's this off-season? Unlikely. It's not in the budget. Meanwhile last year you saw guys with little talent (McKenzie, Ferguson, Jordan to name a few) got huge deals because teams had money to spend so they did. Despite the fact that the talent was not worth it.
I don't mind the cap but I would change the structure. I would make contracts be contracts. None of this cutting or redoing after a year or two. Like the NBA I would also allow teams to go over the cap to hold on to home grown talent. That is if you draft a guy you can resign him after his current contract expires to some predetermined maximum, even if it put you over the cap.
If you’re going to argue that teams make mistakes on the perceived value of players I agree completely. The NFL also has the greatest equalizer of talent having nothing to do with the salary cap, it's called the draft. Teams make mistakes in the draft every year based on perceived talent having nothing to do with salary. If the goal is really parity than let the league run the franchises completely. All teams share equally in everything. Have an independent NFL committee of draft guru's assign the players to each team. Spread the salaries out fairly to all the players. No FA no guaranteed contracts, no up front bonuses. Put in place a really good workman’s comp insurance program for the players. Pool all money and no owner makes more than the other. You want parity; you want the owners not to over pay for players, its called socialism. It does work but it doesn’t create excellence.
