Discussion in 'NFL Zone' started by lk8701, Apr 25, 2022.
no, then teams like cinci and few other with cheap owners, will spend minimum required and collect money and luxuary tax. some rich teams may then spend their way, because luxuary tax means no cap and they can buy championship. NFL wanted parity. its working. they have been as popular as ever if not more. money is just coming in and TV money is reaching ridiculous levels. so why mess with it? because fans are concerned with QB salaries? yet every year one team with a good QB wins the superbowl....
I can't agree 100%. But I do believe in some form of cap, just not this hard cap. Don't be fooled into thinking the cap was designed for what you described, it is not. Love is a great motivator, second only to money. The cap is designed to save money.
A hard cap promotes mediocrity. You have to fight to be above it. That's not better for the game. If everyone was 8-8 the league would suck! It's also a stretch to say the cap had anything to do with growing the sport. The sport grew, the cap was there, no different than saying free agency grew the sport. Correlation does not equal causation.
The cap also has little to do with why Jerry can't win another SB. That 1992 and 1993 team were among the lowest paid teams in the league. Jerry can't win because Jimmy Johnson is no longer here.
You are partially correct. The hard cap does promote teams to be more 8-8 maybe we should say 8-9 now? But with the premise that teams are actually trying to win, backed by the requirement that teams spend x amount of the cap then it really does allow teams to have the opportunity to go from league worst to SB contention rather quickly.
We can still say 8-8, we just now know there's one game left. . Like I said before, I'm all for a competitive league, it's just they way they're doing it that bothers me. I prefer an approach that makes worse teams better, not better teams worse.
I'm also not sure it's the cap that allows for teams to get better quickly. But let's pretend it is. Are they getting better? Or are they better because other teams aren't allowed to be as good as they can be? Making the bad team better by default? Me personally, I think FA is more responsible. It's probably a combination of both.
Let's also not forget teams improved quickly before the cap as well. The Bucs were 0-14 and 2-12 in 1976 and 1977. They were in the NFC Championship game in 1979. The Bengals and 49ers were both 6-10 I believe, the year before they met in the SB. A lot of other examples as well.
The one thing we don't see now are truly great teams. If we do, in most cases they don't last long. The result, fewer rivalries. You need a history to have a rivalry. Out of division rivalries are all but gone.
Correct by limiting how many players are on max contracts they force teams to have to choose who to pay. You may not like the way it works but it works. Compare that to the NBA where there are almost no surprises as to who wins, you basically know before the season starts barring injury. Nobody had the bangles in the SB. And the Patriots were a fairly dominant dynasty during this time. The Steelers weren't winning sb's but they had a good 10+ years of playoff runs too. If you want an NBA style team where you can just buy the best players and have no competition then this isn't the league for you. The NBA is a watered down boring league not even worth watching untill the post season and you still not terribly exciting since we know who will win.
Football would never be like basketball cap or not. Too many players per team. The NBA is a sport that needs a hard cap.
The players will still want free agency no matter if there's a cap or not.
I hate this system in general. The NFL was just fine before the salary cap. It was an idea hatched upon the league by greedy owners with Jerry, ironically, one of the biggest proponents. It was a near perfect system before. If your team sucked and fans stopped showing up, the owner of the team made less money. With caps and revenue sharing, owners don't have to care about the product on the field anymore.
I've mostly completely lost interest in the NBA. Sad when a little whiner like LeBron is the face of the league.
Very well said.
Know what dynasties are? Boring.
Not true. W/ the cap comes a minimum, which forces the cheapskates to pay players. For example, check out the salary disparity between the Yanks and Pirates. The cap would actually mean more money for everyone except the highest paid players.
IMO, this is a "Be careful what you ask for" situation.
Cap, no cap, the teams who win manage things wisely.
The 89% rule was added in 2012.
Prior to that I don't recall if there was a set floor.
Besides, the floor is based off a 4 year average so a team can be cheap years 1-3 then spike year 4 with signing bonuses. And if they don't meet the 89% threshold they just have to pay their players the difference. No fines or draft pick losses.
Without a cap there could be teams being very cheap, but it would explode the market even higher for the peak positions as it just becomes a bidding war without strings/consequences in later years. But the cap was instituted in the 90's to cap player spending. Now, with TV contracts and prices for seats through the roof, most teams are making a killing in profit while the player salaries are capped and can be lower in certain years while they keep printing money.
I wouldn't compare it to baseball. I would compare it to the NFL before 1996. Was the NFL so bad in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's? Hell no. It was a better product. The dynasties of 70's and 80's and 90's are the storied foundation upon which today's NFL sits. The 70's Dolphins, Steelers, Raiders, Cowboys..........90's Niners, Parcels Giants, The 85' Bears.......Jimmy Johnsons's cowboys. None of these would be possible to create and maintain in todays NFL.
So you consider Bill Belichek's patriots a 1 off. I am curious.
Great post. I can't agree more. Another thing you lose with a cap are rivalries. Yeah there are still some, but a cap fights against the consistency it takes to build a rivalry.
If they gave a substantial cap discount to resigning players you drafted, draft well and you can maintain a good team. Maybe. We'll never know.
Giving teams the cap flexibility to keep drafted players would go a long way toward restoring the NFL to what it was before the cap ruined it. The newer fans think these NFL teams are so good....... the early 90's Cowboys, Niners, and Bills would destroy any team from the past 20 years b/c they could stack talent at every position on both sides of the ball. Now, the talent is pretty much evenly spread throughout the league and teams have to chose to focus on being great on offense or defense. Th 90's Cowboys super bowl champs were great on both sides of the ball. Everyone talks about Troy, Emmit, and Irvin, but the defense was #1 one year and near the top every year.
Yeah, you can see it because you lived it. Newer fans don't know the difference because they never experienced it.
Cap flexibility would be great for the game, but do the owners care? I'll be honest, I don't think the owners care what product they put on the field as long as it's popular and keeps brining in money. Cap flexibility would cost them more money.
Free agency was the bigger culprit.