Gryphon
Merge Ahead
- Messages
- 3,407
- Reaction score
- 31
by Mike Florio
Posted: June 2, 2008
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=418794
There's a common belief that, without a salary cap, the National Football League would immediately suffer a baseball-style competitive imbalance, with teams like the Commanders spending more per year on one player than teams like the Cardinals devote to their entire roster.
But there are significant differences between baseball and football, and there are three reasons to believe that the NFL would find a way to avoid such an imbalance even if it forever lost its per-team spending limit/floor.
1. Money can't buy you love - or trophies
Teams have tried to beat the cap system over the years by overspending in the current season. It's a dynamic known as "cash over cap" in league circles.
It typically hasn't worked.
Indeed, collecting superstars doesn't mean a franchise will be successful. In 2000, Commanders owner Daniel Snyder added quarterback Jeff George, defensive end Bruce Smith and cornerback Deion Sanders to a roster that came within a point of advancing to the NFC title game the prior season. The 'Skins also had two of the first three picks in the draft that year, adding tackle Chris Samuels (who started 16 games as a rookie) and linebacker LaVar Arrington (who played in every game, starting 11).
The best team money could buy couldn't even crack .500.
Unlike the pitcher-vs.-batter showdown that forms the basis for success or failure in baseball, football relies on two sets of 11 parts that each must work in unison to be successful. Everyone must know their roles, and there's no guarantee that a roster filled with the highest-paid players would be able to behave as a team.
Since the 2006 extension of the collective bargaining agreement, which gave the players 59 cents of every football dollar earned, fewer teams have been spending above the cap. Maybe spending has maxed out; the fact that teams aren't looking for ways to squeeze extra money into the current year's cap could be an admission that trying to win now isn't worth losing money.
The exception this year is the Oakland Raiders, who are scraping up against the spending ceiling after throwing around too much money to too many players. Most league observers expect that the Raiders will crash and burn (again), and prove once more that buying a bunch of players won't result in a bunch of wins.
Then there are the New England Patriots, who have been successful not by paying huge contracts, but by persuading players to take less money to be part of a winning program. (And, as some would argue, by cheating.) Though the cap could no longer be used in convincing players to accept a reasonable piece of a finite pie, every team would still have a budget for players even in an uncapped environment, and teams like the Patriots would still be able to sell guys who love football on the importance of fairness when it comes to individual finances.
2. The draft keeps the playing field level
The draft is another important tool in preventing the NFL from becoming like Major League Baseball. In baseball, draft picks annually are plugged into farm systems that might or might not eventually cough them up to the parent clubs. In football, each franchise gets a crack at adding a new crop of players every year, players who will be with the team for up to six seasons. As long as the NFL keeps in place a seven-round draft, teams will have a fair chance to add players every year, without having to bid for their services on an open market unrestrained by a salary cap.
Of course, there will need to be meaningful restraints on rookie contracts to prevent protracted holdouts that could lead to players re-entering the draft. Maybe the league, in negotiations with the union, could offer to give up the salary cap (and salary floor) in exchange for a rookie wage system that ensures teams can get rookies into camp and enjoy the benefit of their services long term.
3. Revenue sharing apparently is working
A big-market/small-market disparity in pro football can be avoided via revenue sharing. Though some NFL franchises currently realize much greater unshared revenues than others, the owners in 2006 adopted a system for taking extra money from the high earners and redistributing it based on need.
This means teams like the Commanders and the Cowboys generally won't be able to act like the Yankees and Red Sox, and that teams like the Cardinals and Bengals won't be required to pinch pennies like the Pirates and Marlins.
And if the Cardinals and the Bengals do consistently go cheap, they'd bear the risk of empty stadiums. Unlike the 81-game home slate that baseball teams enjoy, pro football teams have just eight shots at shaking cash out of the fans' pockets. A chronically bad team will have a harder time filling seats and will face intense local pressure if money isn't being spent on signing good players and/or keeping the ones they already have.
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.
Mike Florio writes and edits ProFootballTalk.com and is a regular contributor to Sporting News.
Posted: June 2, 2008
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=418794
There's a common belief that, without a salary cap, the National Football League would immediately suffer a baseball-style competitive imbalance, with teams like the Commanders spending more per year on one player than teams like the Cardinals devote to their entire roster.
But there are significant differences between baseball and football, and there are three reasons to believe that the NFL would find a way to avoid such an imbalance even if it forever lost its per-team spending limit/floor.
1. Money can't buy you love - or trophies
Teams have tried to beat the cap system over the years by overspending in the current season. It's a dynamic known as "cash over cap" in league circles.
It typically hasn't worked.
Indeed, collecting superstars doesn't mean a franchise will be successful. In 2000, Commanders owner Daniel Snyder added quarterback Jeff George, defensive end Bruce Smith and cornerback Deion Sanders to a roster that came within a point of advancing to the NFC title game the prior season. The 'Skins also had two of the first three picks in the draft that year, adding tackle Chris Samuels (who started 16 games as a rookie) and linebacker LaVar Arrington (who played in every game, starting 11).
The best team money could buy couldn't even crack .500.
Unlike the pitcher-vs.-batter showdown that forms the basis for success or failure in baseball, football relies on two sets of 11 parts that each must work in unison to be successful. Everyone must know their roles, and there's no guarantee that a roster filled with the highest-paid players would be able to behave as a team.
Since the 2006 extension of the collective bargaining agreement, which gave the players 59 cents of every football dollar earned, fewer teams have been spending above the cap. Maybe spending has maxed out; the fact that teams aren't looking for ways to squeeze extra money into the current year's cap could be an admission that trying to win now isn't worth losing money.
The exception this year is the Oakland Raiders, who are scraping up against the spending ceiling after throwing around too much money to too many players. Most league observers expect that the Raiders will crash and burn (again), and prove once more that buying a bunch of players won't result in a bunch of wins.
Then there are the New England Patriots, who have been successful not by paying huge contracts, but by persuading players to take less money to be part of a winning program. (And, as some would argue, by cheating.) Though the cap could no longer be used in convincing players to accept a reasonable piece of a finite pie, every team would still have a budget for players even in an uncapped environment, and teams like the Patriots would still be able to sell guys who love football on the importance of fairness when it comes to individual finances.
2. The draft keeps the playing field level
The draft is another important tool in preventing the NFL from becoming like Major League Baseball. In baseball, draft picks annually are plugged into farm systems that might or might not eventually cough them up to the parent clubs. In football, each franchise gets a crack at adding a new crop of players every year, players who will be with the team for up to six seasons. As long as the NFL keeps in place a seven-round draft, teams will have a fair chance to add players every year, without having to bid for their services on an open market unrestrained by a salary cap.
Of course, there will need to be meaningful restraints on rookie contracts to prevent protracted holdouts that could lead to players re-entering the draft. Maybe the league, in negotiations with the union, could offer to give up the salary cap (and salary floor) in exchange for a rookie wage system that ensures teams can get rookies into camp and enjoy the benefit of their services long term.
3. Revenue sharing apparently is working
A big-market/small-market disparity in pro football can be avoided via revenue sharing. Though some NFL franchises currently realize much greater unshared revenues than others, the owners in 2006 adopted a system for taking extra money from the high earners and redistributing it based on need.
This means teams like the Commanders and the Cowboys generally won't be able to act like the Yankees and Red Sox, and that teams like the Cardinals and Bengals won't be required to pinch pennies like the Pirates and Marlins.
And if the Cardinals and the Bengals do consistently go cheap, they'd bear the risk of empty stadiums. Unlike the 81-game home slate that baseball teams enjoy, pro football teams have just eight shots at shaking cash out of the fans' pockets. A chronically bad team will have a harder time filling seats and will face intense local pressure if money isn't being spent on signing good players and/or keeping the ones they already have.
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.
Mike Florio writes and edits ProFootballTalk.com and is a regular contributor to Sporting News.
