MMQB - A Raiders-Cowboys Super Bowl? The NFL Can Dream

[Diehardblues]

I refuse to have a legitimate discussion over the radical shift the league took in the 90's when they implemented a salary cap to create parity.

If you don't see it, that's your problem.

It was a radical shift but it didn't create Parity. They( the owners) sold it as such with unlimited free agency to maintain Parity.

Salary Cap watered down the talent pool lessening the depth . It had Radical shifts in how you built and maintained rosters.

It's been very well documented that in 1970 with the merger Parity was created with Equal TV Revenue.

 

[skinsscalper]

It was a radical shift but it didn't create Parity. They sold it as such to maintain Parity.

I've got no dog in this fight but nice avatar and tribute.

 

[darthseinfeld]

Your shifting the argument now. We won't know what's best for the NFL a couple years down the road until we get there but generally proven teams or QB's sell more than upstarts initially.

Well think about it this way. You have Brady, Brees, Romo , Manning and Rothlisberger likely to retire in 2 to 3 years, with Aaron Rodgers notthat far behimd. You're next group of QB's are Ryan, Flacco, and Stafford. None of whom are bankable winners. The younger guys in Luck, Newton, and Wilson have had a very good amount of success (3 SB births and one championship), but are a steep step down from the top QBs in the NFL right now. Those three are all probably good enough to be faces fr the NFL to market but they are going to need much more from the QB position to make up for who will be retiring. Thats why I see the NFL benefiting greatly from a Raiders/ Cowboys Super Bowl because you add to new signal callers to the NFL's highest stage.

 

[Diehardblues]

Well think about it this way. You have Brady, Brees, Romo , Manning and Rothlisberger likely to retire in 2 to 3 years, with Aaron Rodgers notthat far behimd. You're next group of QB's are Ryan, Flacco, and Stafford. None of whom are bankable winners. The younger guys in Luck, Newton, and Wilson have had a very good amount of success (3 SB births and one championship), but are a steep step down from the top QBs in the NFL right now. Those three are all probably good enough to be faces fr the NFL to market but they are going to need much more from the QB position to make up for who will be retiring. Thats why I see the NFL benefiting greatly from a Raiders/ Cowboys Super Bowl because you add to new signal callers to the NFL's highest stage.

As I stated new blood is always welcomed but it doesn't dismiss or discount that the current legends are still a bigger draw.

My father told me early on" old legends never die and new ones are born everyday".

We always need someone to pass the baton to.

 

[darthseinfeld]

As I stated new blood is always welcomed but it doesn't dismiss or discount that the current legends are still a bigger draw.

My father told me early on" old legends never die and new ones are born everyday".

We always need someone to pass the baton to.

Father's a wise man

 

[Risen Star]

Its not just cap ( although that is monumental) its also the 4 franchises they added in a 5 year span.

Right but the salary cap was implemented to create parity within the league. That's the point of it.

 

[Diehardblues]

Right but the salary cap was implemented to create parity within the league. That's the point of it.

Not create but maintain.

They were afraid unlimited free agency would end or curb the parity they had.

 

[Plankton]

It was a radical shift but it didn't create Parity. They( the owners) sold it as such with unlimited free agency to maintain Parity.

Salary Cap watered down the talent pool lessening the depth . It had Radical shifts in how you built and maintained rosters.

It's been very well documented that in 1970 with the merger Parity was created with Equal TV Revenue.

This isn't true at all.

Shared TV revenue began for the leagues in the 1960's. The first effort to level the playing field was the beginning of the common draft in 1936.

But, let's examine the equal TV revenue and the claim of parity being created with the merger.

In the 1970's, (1970-1979 regular seasons) here are your Super Bowl Champions:

• Pittsburgh - 4 titles, 0 runner up
  
• Dallas - 2 titles, 3 runner ups
  
• Miami - 2 titles, 1 runner up
  
• Baltimore - 1 title, 0 runner up
• Oakland - 1 title, 0 runner up

Five different champions in 10 seasons. Does that sound like parity?

Let's look at the 1980's:

• San Francisco - 4 titles, 0 runner up
• Washington - 2 titles, 1 runner up
• Oakland/Los Angeles - 2 titles, 0 runner up
• Chicago - 1 title, 0 runner up
• New York Giants - 1 title, 0 runner up

Again, five different champions in 10 seasons. Doesn't seem like parity at all.

Since the cap went in, you have had far more teams make it to a Super Bowl, and advance further in the playoffs than happened in the 1970s and 1980s. It wasn't until spending could be capped that this occurred. Also, with expansion adding 6 teams since 1976, the talent pool has also been thinned out, leading to less separation between teams.

 

[SportsGuru80]

I want NE....

 

[T-RO]

Good gawd SS. I predicted--half in jest--early in the thread that we would beat the Raiders 50-49 in the Super Bowl and a few posts later you pick up the scraps of the conversation I was having with another poster and post this:

Stop being so self/team loathing. It looks *****-like.

Outstanding contribution to the conversation, bro. Very insightful stuff.

 

[Diehardblues]

This isn't true at all.

Shared TV revenue began for the leagues in the 1960's. The first effort to level the playing field was the beginning of the common draft in 1936.

But, let's examine the equal TV revenue and the claim of parity being created with the merger.

In the 1970's, (1970-1979 regular seasons) here are your Super Bowl Champions:

• Pittsburgh - 4 titles, 0 runner up
  
• Dallas - 2 titles, 3 runner ups
  
• Miami - 2 titles, 1 runner up
  
• Baltimore - 1 title, 0 runner up
• Oakland - 1 title, 0 runner up

Five different champions in 10 seasons. Does that sound like parity?

Let's look at the 1980's:

• San Francisco - 4 titles, 0 runner up
• Washington - 2 titles, 1 runner up
• Oakland/Los Angeles - 2 titles, 0 runner up
• Chicago - 1 title, 0 runner up
• New York Giants - 1 title, 0 runner up

Again, five different champions in 10 seasons. Doesn't seem like parity at all.

Since the cap went in, you have had far more teams make it to a Super Bowl, and advance further in the playoffs than happened in the 1970s and 1980s. It wasn't until spending could be capped that this occurred. Also, with expansion adding 6 teams since 1976, the talent pool has also been thinned out, leading to less separation between teams.

Your right. Equal TV revenue begun in the 60's not with the official merger in 1970 which was actually created in 60's. Thanks for the correction. That's how the smallest market in Green Bay was able to build a dynasty.

And that's what we had which was much more attractive to NFL and football fans is a league which there was an opportunity of Parity and Dynasty's which was created mostly by Equal TV Revenue unlike any other professional sports league.

Yes, expansion watered down the league but we still had Dynasty's and Parity. 5 different champions in a decade could be defined as Parity with Dynasty's as the teams which built the greater teams were able to maintain them longer. I think most would agree that was more attractive.

But thanks for your contribution which supports Parity wasn't created by the Salary Cap.

The Salary Cap created many issues but the NFL already had Parity which allowed small market teams an even playing field and On Any Given Sunday.

 

[skinsscalper]

Good gawd SS. I predicted--half in jest--early in the thread that we would beat the Raiders 50-49 in the Super Bowl and a few posts later you pick up the scraps of the conversation I was having with another poster and post this:


Outstanding contribution to the conversation, bro. Very insightful stuff.

Wait a minute. You're THIS guy, right.................

I am no longer a fan of the Cowboys but I do occasionally come back over here to check it out...and wow. Someone is talking about "mean on the bone"? What meaningful meat does any fan have of this team for the next five years. I mean, seriously.

What misery to be under Jerry's thumb. So glad I'm there no longer.

Yeah. Insightful indeed.