Okay, let's use an analogy that might make sense to you:
"I'm not going to pretend to know how gravity works exactly, but in the history of the world, what goes up has always come down."
"I'm not going to pretend to know what went on in Romo's negotiations, but in the history of negotiations, both sides have always used whatever leverage they had to their advantage."
Is this registering yet, or should I break out the sock puppets?
Comparing your rationalizations of NFL contract negotiations with the theory of gravity is fun I guess. You look at it as something going up and down. I think of it as a curvature of space-time and am trying to wrap my mind around how the potential of a Higg's boson relates to the interaction of mass. Let's just say your standards for proving correlation are not sufficient to merit such a comparison. It's gratuitous and nothing more.
You have gone from Romo 'bending the Cowboys over' in negotiations to now saying that it has some effect. I am enjoying the bluster though.
You just make a ton of unknowable assumptions. For example: Romo's intention. I am a Spurs fan and have watched Parker, Manu, and Duncan look at a tight salary cap and take lesser deals. We have seen similar behavior from Peyton Manning taking $4m less in Denver with them tight against the cap. They still had to cut Knightley and let Thomas go. Manning had more 'leverage' and what you claim should happen did not.
Then there is the nature of Romo's deal. As more deals have been signed the histrionics from two years ago seem more and more ridiculous to use your term. He is 8th in AAV with Wilson, Luck, and Newton still on rookie deals.
this is interesting though that In a Hardy thread you bring up Romo. Shouldn't let myself get baited like this. Oh well.