ESPN/Mortensen: The league is a bad league right now.

[JsnSA]

Small market teams? Pitt is considered a small market team yet they dominated in the 70's being the 1st to win 4 SB. Just because a team out spends others does not mean you win or even make it to the championship in baseball the Dogers a few years back spent more than anyone and did not even make the post season.

Of course there are exceptions...but if you look at the majority of teams that won in the non cap years..they will have come from larger markets and had larger payrolls.

So yes even though it is true that a team that spends more is not guaranteed a championship..it sure as hell gives them a really nice edge over teams that can't or won't spend as much.

That is a fact.

 

[JsnSA]

If you want to explain mediocrity in the league, I think you have to at least address expansion. The last ten years has seen four teams added, which may sound like few but is almost a 13% growth. If you took out the bottom four players at each position (or rather, moved them to backup roles), the starting talent leaguewide would seem noticeably better, I'd venture to say.

I think all professional sports in the US, tempted by money, have probably over-expanded. Dilution of talent, and growing likelihood of mediocrity, follows.

You make a very good point there.

 

[marchetta]

IMO, FA has caused more mediocraty in the NFL than anything else. Back in the day, players would spend their entire careers learning 1 system. These days, players move around so much that even if they're vets, they are constantly learning a new system, which makes them play like rooks. We just don't realize we're watching mediocre ball because all the teams suck. But just go back to some 70's & 80's games, if you got 'em, and see how well players played back then. Today's athletes are far superior to the athletes of yesterday/yesteryear that they can make up for their faults with sheer ability. But if you had players playing in a system for their entire careers you would be able to see a vast difference, and realize what REAL D and REAL O are. Just my opinion.

 

[GTaylor]

As far as the cap issue...look at baseball and ask yourself if you want that. I dont. Yankees are in the Championship every year because they can spend the money. When you can buy the best players every season, something is wrong.

Just want to note - Yanks 90s championships was built from the farm system (Jeter, Williams, Posada, Martinez, etc.) and trades (Clemens). The only players Yanks "bought" that have amounted to anything was Sheffield. In the Yanks last 2 World Series they lost to Florida and Arizona, two teams that were in the middle-lower tier payroll-wise.

Just like to point that out everytime someone mentions you can "buy" a championship...not that the Yanks won't keep trying

 

[VACowboy]

Jerry and the other owners said to the NFLPA if you get FA we want the cap and that was to keep big markets from going out and getting all the top FA. If you going to have one you have to have the other. Old system was more about drafting and building a team and for those who did that they won and it was not due to outspending others because the market value of players was still as is today. You were not seeing Dallas spending tons of money to keep Staubach his pay was in line with other QB's in the league

I think what everyone is forgetting is that under the "old system" player movement wasn't dictated by player salaries. In fact, it wasn't dictated by players at all because there was no free agency, so of course salaries stayed in check. Dallas didn't have to spend "tons of money" to keep Staubach because Staubach had no choice but to play for the Cowboys, other than holding out. In my opinion it's free agency that's screwed up the NFL, not the salary cap. Problem is, it's not very fair to limit players to a single employer for the durations of their careers and thereby the market value of their services. At the same time, we aren't talking about carpenters and accountants, so fair market value isn't set by a world of consumers but by 32 professional football franchises. So it makes determining what's fair kind of tough. I think the system we had under the last CBA was about as close to as good as it can get.

 

[AMERICAS_FAN]

I agree.

Its easy to say "get back to the old way" when you are assuming that you are one of the teams on top.
But what if you're on the bottom?

If you're a bottom-feeding owner that can't find a way to get your team on top then you should get out of the business sell your team to an owner who can. Kind of like the putz that ultimately sold the Cowboys to Jerry Jones.

**

 

[Zaxor]

Of course there are exceptions...but if you look at the majority of teams that won in the non cap years..they will have come from larger markets and had larger payrolls.

So yes even though it is true that a team that spends more is not guaranteed a championship..it sure as hell gives them a really nice edge over teams that can't or won't spend as much.

That is a fact.

not sure if that is right but we can check...I will do this by memory so if I am wrong blame it on falty memory rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead

SB

I GB
II GB
III JETS
IV COLTS
V DALLAS
VI MIAMI
VII MIAMI
VIII
IX STEELERS
X STEELERS
XI
XII DALLAS
XIII STEELERS
XIV STEELERS
......

Using just those in the example...NY Jets were the only team that could be considered a large market...but they have to share that with the Giants...

now large market does not mean high revenue ... large market means population(though granted the potential for higher earnings exist)

when Jerry bought the team from Bum Bright the team was very close to red lining and was losing it's fan base....

Jerry turned things around by being more involved...right down to the washing of the players jocks and socks (the last attributed to a Jerry quote)

He actively marketed the team and then took that money and further invested it back into the Cowboys...and didn't just stick it in his pocket like Bidwell and others

The Cowboys went back to being a "High Revenue" team.. not by spending lavish sums but by building a better product through their own investment

What Jerry is asking, and rightfully so I might add, is what is stopping the Cardinals and other teams from duing the same thing...

Is SF a "High Revenue" team? they were, but with new ownership intereseted in only what is in it for them...there market share is on the decline and might be considered a non- "high revenue" team

I can see sharing television money, maybe even merchadise...
but....let me ask you this... If I asked you to spend your hard earned money on watching Dog Poo... you would probably most likely turn down that invitation.. so I know you aren't buying a coke and a hotdog and paying for parking while you are at it...

but that is what the Cardinals are asking there fans to do...

now Jerry on the other hand...asks you if you would like to watch a potential Super Bowl contender...provides you with a nice parking spot for a nominal fee also provides something for thirst and hunger should the need arise again for a nominal fee..he will also try and make himself available to the fans doing Radio and TV shows...and trys to entertain you for your hard earned money...

now the Cardinals turn around and say... Hey Jerry, No Fair, you have all this money from ticket, concessions, parking, luxury boxes...that we don't have..how about you share that with us... you and your "high revenue" team have a unfair advantage....

I ask you is that fair... if it is fairness you are interested in.

 

[Kevinicus]

In the Yanks last 2 World Series they lost to Florida and Arizona, two teams that were in the middle-lower tier payroll-wise.

If I remember correctly, AZ spent over $100M that year and were top 3-5 in payroll. It does take more than $$ to win champions, but without it, it's almost impossible. The Yankees are dollar for dollar one of the worst teams in sports, but they have the luxury of spending a ton of money so that they can be good anyway. Give the A's or Twins or some other teams $200M to work with, teams that know what they're doing and don't waste the money they do have, and I bet you they do win the championship almost every year.

 

[Doomsday101]

For me I saw what football was before the cap and FA and I see it today and frankly I like the old system better and felt the quality of football was much better because of the fact players stayed together much longer so there was more continuity. Today there are no Doomsday defense or Steel Curtain or the Purple people eaters because these groups can't stay together long enough to form the same greatness over a period of time. I would have hated to see guys like Randy White, Ed Jones, Harvey Martin, Cliff Harris and Charlie Waters split up because of FA bs and the Cap and believe me had FA existed back then that is exactly what would have happed. I love the game of football that is why I continue to watch but no the product is not better today than it was in years past.

 

[wileedog]

If I remember correctly, AZ spent over $100M that year and were top 3-5 in payroll. It does take more than $$ to win champions, but without it, it's almost impossible. The Yankees are dollar for dollar one of the worst teams in sports, but they have the luxury of spending a ton of money so that they can be good anyway. Give the A's or Twins or some other teams $200M to work with, teams that know what they're doing and don't waste the money they do have, and I bet you they do win the championship almost every year.

Because, ironically, their farm system hs been abysmal since it spit out Jeter, Pettitte, et. al. The Yanks have drafted absolutely terribly for almost a decade. Everyone thinks they 'trade away all their youth for superstars', when in fact the only players of note the Yanks farm system has produced in the last 8 or 9 years are the eminently over-rated Soriano and the always hurt Nick Johnson.

I'm not in favor of uncapping football necessarily, but anyone who thinks Jerry is going to go on a spending spree and 'buy' 10 Superbowls is wishful thinking.

Scouting and drafting are still King, even without a cap.

At best, lots of money allows you to never be horrible. But it rarely equates directly to rings.

 

[arglebargle]

I think what everyone is forgetting is that under the "old system" player movement wasn't dictated by player salaries. In fact, it wasn't dictated by players at all because there was no free agency, so of course salaries stayed in check. Dallas didn't have to spend "tons of money" to keep Staubach because Staubach had no choice but to play for the Cowboys, other than holding out. In my opinion it's free agency that's screwed up the NFL, not the salary cap. Problem is, it's not very fair to limit players to a single employer for the durations of their careers and thereby the market value of their services. At the same time, we aren't talking about carpenters and accountants, so fair market value isn't set by a world of consumers but by 32 professional football franchises. So it makes determining what's fair kind of tough. I think the system we had under the last CBA was about as close to as good as it can get.

You said it!

The "Old Way" is probably illegal as well. I don't think the NFL system would actually stand up to a serious challenge in court. Up to now, no one has been willing to do it because everyone has been sharing the gravy. That was the deal with the Cap and Free Agency, imho. Players were P.O.ed enough to consider challenging the whole structure. They hammered out the present system instead. But if everyone is not careful now, someone will take aim at the Golden Goose.....

 

[GTaylor]

If I remember correctly, AZ spent over $100M that year and were top 3-5 in payroll. It does take more than $$ to win champions, but without it, it's almost impossible. The Yankees are dollar for dollar one of the worst teams in sports, but they have the luxury of spending a ton of money so that they can be good anyway. Give the A's or Twins or some other teams $200M to work with, teams that know what they're doing and don't waste the money they do have, and I bet you they do win the championship almost every year.

You're close (And I was off) - Arizona's payroll was around $81 million in 01 (8th in the league), but you hit the key words for a contending team "Teams that know what they're doing and don't waste the money" - that right there is the key to winning a championship in any sport. In 2002 Anaheim ($62 million, 15th) defeated San Francisco (10th at $78 million) to win the World Series and in the process eliminated the Yanks.

2003 Florida won with a $48.75 million payroll over the $152 million Yanks,
2004 had Boston ($125 million, 2nd - key piece was acquired via trade, Curt Schilling) winning while last year Chicago White Sox ($75 million, 13th) defeated Houston ($76 million, 12th - take away Roger Clemens who that year MADE $18 million and Houston would actually be $58 million, or 19th...and with that Jeff Bagwell accounted for $18 million last year himself).

BTW - Yanks' 90s world series payrolls:
96 $52 million (1st, 2nd was Baltimore at $48 million)
98 $63 million (2nd, Baltimore 1st at $72 million)
99 $88 million (1st, Rangers 2nd at $81 million)
and 2000 $92 million (1st, L.A. Dodgers 2nd at $90 million)

My point is when the lesson the Yanks should be teaching us is that when they dominated in the late 90s it wasn't because of payroll, it was because they "knew what they were doing"

And the point about the A's and Twins, both dominated their divisions due to the farm clubs, heck Billy Beane even said the Twins should be the role model for every club......

 

[PullMyFinger]

The cap punished great teams and rewarded bad teams. theres about 250 elite players scattered among 32 teams, why should great teams be punished for good drafting or good trades?

if Fa was 6 yrs minimum, it would be better i think, then your not forced to throw the youngings to the wolves.