lewpac
Benched
- Messages
- 1,465
- Reaction score
- 2
tyke1doe;2572876 said:By this logic, the poor should stay poor, the rich should stay rich. I'd use other comparisons, but there'd be a full scale war up in cheer.
Two things.....................
To another poster, there's not a Div. 1 College team that could beat the worst NFL team. The Detroit Lions would utterly DESTROY Florida.
To the above quoted point, I didn't say that and I don't think that.
I DO think that "poor" teams should build and work their way up through the draft, solidarity and continuity. And I don't want to hear how the "small market" teams can't compete.
Before salary caps and parity measures, how do you explain the 70's Steelers? Oakland isn't exactly NY or LA or Chicago, yet they were consistently great for two decades. The Vikings of the late 60's & 70's?? The ultimate example are the Packers of the 60's!! What about the Bills of the early 90's, just before free agency and salary caps were initiated???
Buffalo
Minnesota
Oakland
Pittsburgh
Green Bay
Five of the most storied and successful franchise's in NFL history. All built slowly, keeping the same players and staff for years, and stayed good for a looooooooooong, long time.
Salary caps and free agency were installed just in time to destroy the Cowboys of the 90's. Raped and pillaged and cockroached to pieces by other teams flashing big money.
Players who's team used a valuable draft pick on, coached and trained and payed to teach them to play in the NFL, and just when they become almost inexpendable to a team, the just prostitute themselves away. Is that fair to those teams who invested so much in them? Seems like a rotten deal for owners and teams IMO.
So, "the poor stay poor" and "the rich stay rich"? Not exactly. I'd just like to see it more "earned". Instead, teams get to watch players develop on someone else's dime, and when they're "ready to be plucked", they just swoop in and take the product of someone else's investments and hard work.