What if NFL removes Salary Cap?

[Playmaker247]

But really...what is a small market?

Buffalo isn't exactly a huge market and they made it 4 straight years. Why? Because they drafted well. We were successful because we drafted well in the 90s more than spending big in free agency. That's what bothers me, you draft a player...groom him to be a good player and then you just have to watch him leave because you can't afford him.

Leary is a good example.

That's my point. I feel like it's dumb that teams draft these players then just have to watch them leave cause they can't afford them.

 

[Fizziksman]

i'd prefer a soft cap tbh and something like bird rights like in the NBA to help teams sign players they drafted and developed.

 

[Nightman]

TV money is huge right now but it will go down and so will the cap, probably 5-6 years away

The League should look into expanding rosters in the mean time.....you know for player safety

All 63 should be on the roster and at least 55 should dress.....only cost about 5-10m per team

Teams carrying over 50m is not a good look

 

[Setackin]

Maybe a separate cap for QBs and the team.

The rookie contracts were getting out of control so the NFL put a cap on them. I'm totally not looking forward to what we will have to pay Dak if he keeps playing at the same pace that he is.

Maybe offense and defense caps.

 

[Setackin]

I want the 53 man roster to expand to 63 and practice squad to like 20. No development league the NFL needs something big.

 

[IrishAnto]

The cap was put in because of Jones and Dibartlo spending more than the other owners because they wanted to win SBs and the hell with player salaries. Whoever won the NFC championship game was going to win the SB. Jerry would love to have that again

He most certainly would as he's done Sweet FA in the Salary Cap era.

 

[Alexander]

Jerry Jones would buy himself the most talented roster ever and hand it over to Garrett. After an undefeated regular season, we would still lose in the divisional round.

 

[noshame]

Maybe a separate cap for QBs and the team.

The rookie contracts were getting out of control so the NFL put a cap on them. I'm totally not looking forward to what we will have to pay Dak if he keeps playing at the same pace that he is.

I think skill players should be exempt this would allow teams to keep their stars together if they wish.

 

[Longboysfan]

Jerry could outspend every other owner.

 

[DallasEast]

I saw this mentioned in another thread and wanted to know what you guys think of the NFL removing the salary cap. It seems mostly the same teams always end up in the championship games and superbowl's anyway so it's not like its creating a more balanced league like it was meant to do. Thoughts?

Makes me wish I could dig up my posts and threads on the subject from 2004 and earlier that I made here and on the Dallas News Cowboys forum before it. I wasn't in favor of the current free agency and salary cap system when the NFL ratified the CBA in 1993 and haven't changed my mind in 23 years. However, the owners and players enjoy outrageous financial windfalls and a significant portion of the league's fans embrace forced parity football, so that's that.

 

[DallasEast]

Reminder

Forum Rule #7 - You will not post political discussions or comments.

Thanks.

​

Link to Forum Rules: click here

 

[Echo9]

But really...what is a small market?

Buffalo isn't exactly a huge market and they made it 4 straight years. Why? Because they drafted well. We were successful because we drafted well in the 90s more than spending big in free agency. That's what bothers me, you draft a player...groom him to be a good player and then you just have to watch him leave because you can't afford him.

Leary is a good example.

There was no free agency to spend big on back then. Aside from the rare plan B, they were able to keep the players they drafted. Free agency and the cap go hand in hand.

 

[LittleD]

In the MLB, the large market teams spend like crazy but, don't win the series every year. In the NBA you have the tax
if they go over the cap. Something could be worked out to lift the cap but, would a majority of the owners support it.
Doubt it.

 

[punchnjudy]

As others have said, it's just a price control. A way for billionaire owners to control their spending,

The NFL's revenue sharing plan is much different than MLB. Apples and oranges.

http://thefieldsofgreen.com/2014/07...revenue-but-the-nfl-is-by-far-the-best-at-it/

 

[xwalker]

The cap was put in because of Jones and Dibartlo spending more than the other owners because they wanted to win SBs and the hell with player salaries. Whoever won the NFC championship game was going to win the SB. Jerry would love to have that again

That is wrong. Jerry wanted the cap.

 

[robjay04]

There was no free agency to spend big on back then. Aside from the rare plan B, they were able to keep the players they drafted. Free agency and the cap go hand in hand.

I understand the logic. I just hate that teams are punished if they draft "too well". If you're good, your punishment should be that you pick later.

Regardless, there will be no substantial changes to the cap ever.

 

[Nova]

I saw a really interesting article about how the Salary Cap actually hurts parity.

The whole premise was that it limits the way teams can build franchises; limiting the formula for success.

Essentially, teams may have an easier path to the playoffs now due to a bit of parity, but only the teams that are truly savvy at drafting well and managing the cap are consistently in the super bowl (NE, BAL, PIT, NYG, SF).

I don't know if I agree completely, but they used some good counterpoints. For instance, MLB sees more parity despite not having a cap.

 

[Afigueroa22]

i'd prefer a soft cap tbh and something like bird rights like in the NBA to help teams sign players they drafted and developed.

I agree 100%.

 

[TheHerd]

I saw a really interesting article about how the Salary Cap actually hurts parity.

The whole premise was that it limits the way teams can build franchises; limiting the formula for success.

Essentially, teams may have an easier path to the playoffs now due to a bit of parity, but only the teams that are truly savvy at drafting well and managing the cap are consistently in the super bowl (NE, BAL, PIT, NYG, SF).

I don't know if I agree completely, but they used some good counterpoints. For instance, MLB sees more parity despite not having a cap.

I think the cap ensures teams aren't as good overall, so individual players and coaches can make a bigger difference. Parity just means lots of playoff appearance turnover, but actually competing for championships is a short list.

For instance, while the Pats 6 consecutive AFCC run is impressive, they've beat some really bad teams in the division round most of those years.

Every year some truly awful teams are in the playoffs.

 

[Nova]

I think the cap ensures teams aren't as good overall, so individual players and coaches can make a bigger difference. Parity just means lots of playoff appearance turnover, but actually competing for championships is a short list.

For instance, while the Pats 6 consecutive AFCC run is impressive, they've beat some really bad teams in the division round most of those years.

Every year some truly awful teams are in the playoffs.

Right.

The Pats success is incredible. But it's also largely in part because of Brady vs the other QBs in the division.

The AFCE as a whole has not fielded a legit franchise QB to contend for the division since Brady has taken over. Ryan Tannehill is the closest thing to a franchise QB that division has seen in almost 2 decades.