Uncapped NFL wouldn’t blow lid off balance

quote:

I’m not saying that an NFL without a salary cap would be better. The current system works incredibly well, and the owners and the union should do everything in their power to keep the system in place. But a league without a salary cap wouldn’t be the football Armageddon that many presume it would be. In some ways, the drama might be even more compelling, especially when a team that opts to be frugal when it comes to filling out its roster meets a team full of big-money stars in the playoffs.

The whole reason behind having a salary cap was because there was an imbalance in team talent due to some having more money for free agents.
Would Favre have stayed with the Packers, if someone like the Redskins could double his salary?
The writer is probably a Redskins fan.

Meh, this is just Mike Florio again (from PFT) moonlighting as a real writer. He's a recovering Vikings fan, by his own account.

To me the bigger worry would be revenue sharing and in particular, WHAT revenue gets shared. That's where Jerry Jones and Snyderbrenner have exploited loopholes.

The NFL is the best thing going right now. I highly doubt that the Commish or Upshaw would be stupid enough...err, nevermind. Now I am worried.

Why the players agree to a cap is beyond me. If I were a player in the union I would take a year off just to rid the league of a cap. Maybe a 2 year strike would be worth it, although the average NFL career is so short that may be a lot tougher. The cap is there to protect the owners from themselves. Without a cap, the Jerry Jones' of this world would go wild with their spending. The results may not be as impressive as you think. Football is not soccer or basketball, where you can just plug in some stars and let them go to work. It requires chemistry and teamwork.

quote:

Originally posted by Goalline:
Why the players agree to a cap is beyond me. If I were a player in the union I would take a year off just to rid the league of a cap. Maybe a 2 year strike would be worth it, although the average NFL career is so short that may be a lot tougher. The cap is there to protect the owners from themselves. Without a cap, the Jerry Jones' of this world would go wild with their spending. The results may not be as impressive as you think. Football is not soccer or basketball, where you can just plug in some stars and let them go to work. It requires chemistry and teamwork.

Very true, up to a point. Some positions are more plug-n-play; RB for example. Unlimited spending in free agency is also an excellent way to cripple a division rival by emptying their cupboard for them. Do you think Jerrah would think twice about stealing someone like Strahan away from the Giants - even if he didn't really need a DE?

Uncapped football would undoubtedly be a bad thing. Baseball and basketball would improve, IMO, if they adopted our system.

Would things REALLY change that much without a salary cap?

Look at the free agent contracts signed just this offseason. 7-years, $50 million, for GUARDS.

Look at the huge money Jerry Jones shelled out this offseason. Record-setting deals for Marion Barber....Terrell Owens....did Tony Romo get his yet? I've lost track.

When Daniel Snyder handed out some $80 million in signing bonuses to a handful of players a few years back, that was under the presence of a salary cap.

Aren't player salaries insane NOW? Don't the deepest-pocket owners shell out as much money as they want to pay the top players they want NOW?

All this fretting about the possibility of an uncapped year suggests restrictions that the wealthiest owners have long worked around with ease anyway. It suggests a frugality that simply doesn't exist.

It also suggests that teams that spend the most money in the NFL will win the most, which as Washington is proof of, simply isn't true.

Sorry, I gotta disagree. The salary cap keeps things on a (somewhat) even field. I definitely don't want to see the Microsoft Marauders in the Superbowl every year while small-market teams like the Packers and Bills languish in their respective basements because they can't even afford to keep their own players out of the free agent market.

doesn't the cap also dictate that there is a minimum amount spent on salaries?

Not saying there wouldn't be any difference, but the truth is that teams like the Cowboys and Redskins can (and do) outspend the Bills and smaller market teams right now. Are Jones and Snyder really unable to spend as much as they want to add the players they want? They can and do, they just do it with huge signing bonuses (that can be spread out over multiple years) and the like.

I'm just asking you, 1) Does the salary cap actually prevent the Redskins from outbidding the Bills on a player they really want? And 2) Do the teams that spend the most money right now necessarily have better teams anyway? The 49ers have spent a mint the last two offseasons. The Packers have spent very little. And they suck and we don't.

Oh, I'm not saying that big spending is the way to win - not at all. But in a way, Jerrah and Snyderbrenner are limited in the amount they can pay an individual player. They can break the bank on a few superstars, but the rest of the team will be composed of has-beens and never-weres. And you can't win like that.

But my point is that it's the salary cap that makes it that way.

Here's how an uncapped NFL would play out, IMO:

Filthy-rich owners would snap up every marquee player they could get their hands on immediately. Would they win a lot of games? Not at first, because there'd be no chemistry or consistency.

But, those big names would fill a lot of seats and sell a ton of merchandise. And with that kind of revenue, those owners could afford to keep that team together long enough for them to learn how to win. In 3 or 4 years, you'd have two or three "Yankees" teams, and the rest would be the "Cubs".

quote:

and the rest would be the "Cubs".

Ummmmm... currently the best record in baseball. Just sayin'

quote:

Originally posted by Shoeless Joe:

quote:

and the rest would be the "Cubs".

Ummmmm... currently the best record in baseball. Just sayin'

LOL. Maybe this isn't a good year to be pulling out that analogy...

quote:

Originally posted by Since69:
Oh, I'm not saying that big spending is the way to win - not at all. But in a way, Jerrah and Snyderbrenner are limited in the amount they can pay an individual player. They can break the bank on a few superstars, but the rest of the team will be composed of has-beens and never-weres. And you can't win like that.

But my point is that it's the salary cap that makes it that way.

Here's how an uncapped NFL would play out, IMO:

Filthy-rich owners would snap up every marquee player they could get their hands on immediately. Would they win a lot of games? Not at first, because there'd be no chemistry or consistency.

But, those big names would fill a lot of seats and sell a ton of merchandise. And with that kind of revenue, those owners could afford to keep that team together long enough for them to learn how to win. In 3 or 4 years, you'd have two or three "Yankees" teams, and the rest would be the "Cubs".

I still disagree. In the NFL careers are too short, injuries are too common, and coaching too important to think a team loaded with wealthy superstars will dominate the league. Guys who get paid top dollar one year get cut the next, literally. That's exactly what happened to Snyder when he did just what you're saying a few years ago. It didn't work.

The Cowboys already fill all their seats and sell a ton of merchandise. The wealthy owners have more revenue than they can spend now, only some of which is derived from football. If the Cowboys sell more merchandise does that really show up in Jerry Jones' bank account?

I understand what you're saying and there's no question it can (and does) work in some sports. I don't think it can, or does, or will ever work in the NFL. I think most of these stories are just mindless scare tactics and opportunities for owners to develop us vs. them mentalities, but I don't believe it translates onto the field.

The truth is that even the wealthiest owners are likely quite comfortable with there being a salary cap. They can easily work around it now for players they really want, and they certainly don't want player salaries to get any more out of control than they already are. If anyone doesn't want a salary cap it's the players, not the owners -- but even the absence of a salary cap would only benefit the elite players anyway...the guys who already don't have to worry about getting a boatload of money if they make it to free agency. The major change if a salary cap goes away is that the gap between the league's richest players and the poorest would increase. As far as where players sign and which teams are actually the best, though, I don't think much would change at all.

quote:

Originally posted by Since69:
Baseball and basketball would improve, IMO, if they adopted our system.

Basketball's cap is more restrictive than the NFL's.

quote:

Originally posted by Shoeless Joe:

quote:

and the rest would be the "Cubs".

Ummmmm... currently the best record in baseball. Just sayin'

Try substituting Royals or Pirates instead. The Cubs haven't had a low buck payroll in more than a decade, not that anybody outside (or inside) Chicago seems to realize it....

IMHO it is a simply matter of economics. The Packers have a reserve fund which they can use to pay bonuses etc. I would bet anyone a beer that the Jones's/Snyderbrenner's have more disposable money in their accounts than the Packers have. We dont have the billionaire backing that other teams enjoy and i think the comparison that Bearbite made to the Pirates is very valid.

Would spending like a drunken sailor a key to success? no way and it has been proven to be the wrong approach time and time again. But you know that Danny boy and Jerruh wouldnt be able to help themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by Since69:
Sorry, I gotta disagree. The salary cap keeps things on a (somewhat) even field. I definitely don't want to see the Microsoft Marauders in the Superbowl every year while small-market teams like the Packers and Bills languish in their respective basements because they can't even afford to keep their own players out of the free agent market.

You mean like how the Yankees and Mets are in the World Series every year?

The salary cap is quickly becoming meaningless. The cap goes up so much higher year after year that it really doesn't matter anymore. All thanks to the $300 we fans shell out every year for Sunday Ticket, the merchandise nobody can get enough of, the tickets, apparel, etc.

I mean the Raiders gave a guy many hadn't even heard of $55 million. This guy was also coming off a torn ACL injury (Tommy Davis or whatever his name was). The Falcons gave $30 million to a 3rd overall draft pick. It's beyond ridiculous at this point, not having a salary cap won't make a huge difference.

Now, if they got rid of the revenue sharing that's a totally different story.