[Coededgeme]

Do you know how insane you sound? A financial penalty for sucking? If that was the case the Lions would of been contracted decades ago. After Sullys last post I think its pretty clear, you have been proven to be wrong.

Isn't that a better alternative than setting up a system that forces a good team that drafted well, to lose their players because they have too many good ones that they can't afford to stay under the salary cap?

It's not insane to have a penalty(or more accurately, to reduce the amount of revenue sharing to teams who don't attempt to compete)

The sport is a big profitable business. The only reason that teams don't spend money on players is because the owners don't want to. In the NFL, around 80% of the teams revenue is from tv. All of that pie is shared equally. It's in the sports best interest to have the best teams out there. But there is no reason for the owners to really care, since they are getting the same amount of money regardless. If you put a salary cap out there, it only encourages the crappy owners to continue being crappy owners, Now they look like they are trying while not really having to bother with actually trying. The good teams are the teams who want to be good, while crappy owners just cash in their checks. A financial incentive to those owners would encourage them to get a decent front office, because they don't want to deal with losing the revenue.

A salary cap, is the owners way of telling the fans "you are too stupid to understand the business aspect of the game, so this makes it look like we are trying, while we fuck the players, and the fans and sit at home on piles of unspent cash"

The owners who want to win, will win, while the owners who don't, will continue owning the team and making money. There are better ways.

[VYholden]

[JoZertekAdv]

Why? NFL shares almost all of it's revenue between teams, the only reason they wouldn't have been able to keep Peyton would have been because their owner was a greedy sob and wouldn't fork over the money.

NFL teams complaining about market size is a joke of monumental proportions. The NFL doesn't have the revenue discrepency of market size like the other sports because of their tv contracts. NFL is actually the last sport that should have a salary cap for that particular reason.

How do you figure? Do you think the teams would only use money that they make off of the NFL? Some Russian oil tycoon could take over a team (NBA Nets), take the money he makes from the NFL, triple it with his own cash, and buy whatever player they wanted. Lesser billionaire owners couldn't compete and certainly not the Irsay family.

[searkibia]

Isn't that a better alternative than setting up a system that forces a good team that drafted well, to lose their players because they have too many good ones that they can't afford to stay under the salary cap?

It's not insane to have a penalty(or more accurately, to reduce the amount of revenue sharing to teams who don't attempt to compete)

The sport is a big profitable business. The only reason that teams don't spend money on players is because the owners don't want to. In the NFL, around 80% of the teams revenue is from tv. All of that pie is shared equally. It's in the sports best interest to have the best teams out there. But there is no reason for the owners to really care, since they are getting the same amount of money regardless. If you put a salary cap out there, it only encourages the crappy owners to continue being crappy owners, Now they look like they are trying while not really having to bother with actually trying. The good teams are the teams who want to be good, while crappy owners just cash in their checks. A financial incentive to those owners would encourage them to get a decent front office, because they don't want to deal with losing the revenue.

A salary cap, is the owners way of telling the fans "you are too stupid to understand the business aspect of the game, so this makes it look like we are trying, while we fuck the players, and the fans and sit at home on piles of unspent cash"

The owners who want to win, will win, while the owners who don't, will continue owning the team and making money. There are better ways.

So youre saying without a salary cap teams like Miami, Jacksonville and Cleveland would get better wherein with a salary cap they arent?

[Coededgeme]

why? because other teams would have offered him a shit load more money then the colts ever would have been able to.

Where are these teams getting the money from that the Colts don't have? You do know that Most of the money in the NFL is off of tv revenue right? NFL doesn't have the size discrepency issue that the other sports do, because local revenue is a drop in the bucket.

But even making the assumption that other teams are willing to spend more money on Peyton. So what. Why go with a salary cap system, instead of a system that encourages the owners to spend on the players? Salary cap is the lazy mans way of trying to control spending. MLB locks up drafted players into poor contracts for their first 6 years, and tons of teams use that time frame to sign players long term. Why couldn't a system like that work in the NFL?

Of course your situation doesn't help in the situation, lets say the Colts over three years drafted a future hof quarterback, a hof running back, a hof receiver, hof saftety and hof linebacker. Under the salary cap system, they have No chance of keeping all of those players. Why should the smart organization that saw something that everyone else didn't, who developed these players into future hofers, be punished because of a salary cap system?

[GustavM]

So youre saying without a salary cap teams like Miami, Jacksonville and Cleveland would get better wherein with a salary cap they arent?

Just love how the Dolphins are considered one of the most epically bad teams in the history of the game now.

[searkibia]

Just love how the Dolphins are considered one of the most epically bad teams in the history of the game now.

Im talking about right now man, not all time. I could say the Vikings too or St. Louis. Dont get all offended.

[Coededgeme]

So youre saying without a salary cap teams like Miami, Jacksonville and Cleveland would get better wherein with a salary cap they arent?

Nope. I'm saying that a salary cap is a crutch that people use to lie to themselves about how their team is going to be in the future. If you have a crappy front office, you have a crappy front office, no matter how much you spend(see the Mets) it doesn't change that fact. The only financial setup that makes sense is a system that encourages(rewards) teams for improving and for winning. Most systems do reward teams for winning(just making the post season in baseball is financial boon for teams) but they don't reward for improvement. And conversely there is no punishment for getting worse.

Salary cap is not an improvement, it's a different way of getting the same results, the only difference is that the owners are now pocketing the money, and the fans are fooled into thinking their owners are trying.

[searkibia]

Where are these teams getting the money from that the Colts don't have? You do know that Most of the money in the NFL is off of tv revenue right? NFL doesn't have the size discrepency issue that the other sports do, because local revenue is a drop in the bucket.

But even making the assumption that other teams are willing to spend more money on Peyton. So what. Why go with a salary cap system, instead of a system that encourages the owners to spend on the players? Salary cap is the lazy mans way of trying to control spending. MLB locks up drafted players into poor contracts for their first 6 years, and tons of teams use that time frame to sign players long term. Why couldn't a system like that work in the NFL?

Of course your situation doesn't help in the situation, lets say the Colts over three years drafted a future hof quarterback, a hof running back, a hof receiver, hof saftety and hof linebacker. Under the salary cap system, they have No chance of keeping all of those players. Why should the smart organization that saw something that everyone else didn't, who developed these players into future hofers, be punished because of a salary cap system?

Probably because the average career span of an NFL player is around 6 years... If that.. So this wouldnt work.

[yxn2dC07]

Nope. I'm saying that a salary cap is a crutch that people use to lie to themselves about how their team is going to be in the future. If you have a crappy front office, you have a crappy front office, no matter how much you spend(see the Mets) it doesn't change that fact. The only financial setup that makes sense is a system that encourages(rewards) teams for improving and for winning. Most systems do reward teams for winning(just making the post season in baseball is financial boon for teams) but they don't reward for improvement. And conversely there is no punishment for getting worse.

Salary cap is not an improvement, it's a different way of getting the same results, the only difference is that the owners are now pocketing the money, and the fans are fooled into thinking their owners are trying.

I don't get why you have such a low opinion of sports fans. Who is fooled into thinking lazy/greedy owners are trying to win?

The salary cap just makes sense. You don't invest a billion dollars into a business to get no return on it. I'd want to protect my investment, too.

[GustavM]

Im talking about right now man, not all time. I could say the Vikings too or St. Louis. Dont get all offended.

Not offended, just pissed that my team is becoming one of the first people think of along these lines. And while they've gotten a lot of bad pub lately, but there are still several that deserve to be mentioned ahead of Miami in this conversation.

[GustavM]

I don't get why you have such a low opinion of sports fans. Who is fooled into thinking lazy/greedy owners are trying to win?

Not sports fans, FOOTBALL fans.

[searkibia]

Not offended, just pissed that my team is becoming one of the first people think of along these lines. And while they've gotten a lot of bad pub lately, but there are still several that deserve to be mentioned ahead of Miami in this conversation.

I understand and I didnt mean to offend, its just Miami is not in a good spot right now. THey missed out on free agency and have a really good defense but a ton of holes on offense. Im not singling them out, Lets just stick with the Browns. Perennially they suck, how does no salary cap make them better? And if they dont improve under the cardsfanboy rule and go 3 years stinking up the joint, ok ya penalize them. Then what? How do they get better then? Ok the owner sucks, the management sucks etc.. I get that, how is that the salary caps fault in the first place?

[ITYfl01c]

I understand and I didnt mean to offend, its just Miami is not in a good spot right now. THey missed out on free agency and have a really good defense but a ton of holes on offense. Im not singling them out, Lets just stick with the Browns. Perennially they suck, how does no salary cap make them better? And if they dont improve under the cardsfanboy rule and go 3 years stinking up the joint, ok ya penalize them. Then what? How do they get better then? Ok the owner sucks, the management sucks etc.. I get that, how is that the salary caps fault in the first place?

No salary cap would make the Browns better because the Giants, Jets, Patriots, Cowboys, and 49ers would be able to spend without restriction.

[BaselBimbooooo]

Where are these teams getting the money from that the Colts don't have? You do know that Most of the money in the NFL is off of tv revenue right? NFL doesn't have the size discrepency issue that the other sports do, because local revenue is a drop in the bucket.

But even making the assumption that other teams are willing to spend more money on Peyton. So what. Why go with a salary cap system, instead of a system that encourages the owners to spend on the players? Salary cap is the lazy mans way of trying to control spending. MLB locks up drafted players into poor contracts for their first 6 years, and tons of teams use that time frame to sign players long term. Why couldn't a system like that work in the NFL?

Of course your situation doesn't help in the situation, lets say the Colts over three years drafted a future hof quarterback, a hof running back, a hof receiver, hof saftety and hof linebacker. Under the salary cap system, they have No chance of keeping all of those players. Why should the smart organization that saw something that everyone else didn't, who developed these players into future hofers, be punished because of a salary cap system?

that's great they all have tv money. it doesn't change the fact that the colts wouldn't be able to re-sign manning because teams in large markets would be able to offer manning way more money than the colts would in a league without a salary cap.

that's not even a remotely plausible scenario.

[Coededgeme]

Probably because the average career span of an NFL player is around 6 years... If that.. So this wouldnt work.

I would think that the average career span being shorter would make this work more. If you outright own the rights to the player you drafted for six years, and his only options is arbitration and not free agency, then why would this not work?

I don't get why you have such a low opinion of sports fans. Who is fooled into thinking lazy/greedy owners are trying to win?

The salary cap just makes sense. You don't invest a billion dollars into a business to get no return on it. I'd want to protect my investment, too.

Because I find it silly when people try to argue that the salary cap adds parity or fairness to a league and that other sports should support it. It doesn't add parity, it doesn't add fairness, it detracts from the fans enjoyment because it encourages player movement.

During the lockout, there was people who actually supported the owners. That is why I have such a low opinion of sports fans. They are on average idiots.

The salary cap only makes sense from the point of view of the owners. A better designed system makes sense. (note: each sport has things in their system that I think could be used in a better designed system, none of them have a great system right now) A better designed system borrows from baseball, where you own the players that you get and develop. A better designed system borrows from Basketball, where you can sign your own free agents and not face penalty(salary cap penalty or whatever) a better designed system borrows from football, you can assign a player a franchise status which guarantees him a good contract, but prevents him from going somewhere else. Of course any system that is worth a crap has guaranteed contracts and not the unholy abomination that the NFl does. Etc. A good design system of course has in place a way to encourage owners to try and win. Maybe not this year, but to build a team that should be competitive down the road. Every fan should be able to look at their team and say "we may not be good this year, but in two or three seasons we will be a force to be reckoned with" And of course heavy revenue sharing.

[GustavM]

I understand and I didnt mean to offend, its just Miami is not in a good spot right now. THey missed out on free agency and have a really good defense but a ton of holes on offense. Im not singling them out, Lets just stick with the Browns. Perennially they suck, how does no salary cap make them better? And if they dont improve under the cardsfanboy rule and go 3 years stinking up the joint, ok ya penalize them. Then what? How do they get better then? Ok the owner sucks, the management sucks etc.. I get that, how is that the salary caps fault in the first place?

I don't know. Because it would FORCE them to try harder and bring smart people into the front office? See, they aren't trying to do that now, because with the cap, they have no incentive to try to win. So they just suck on purpose.

[searkibia]

No salary cap would make the Browns better because the Giants, Jets, Patriots, Cowboys, and 49ers would be able to spend without restriction.

Exactamundo!

[searkibia]

I would think that the average career span being shorter would make this work more. If you outright own the rights to the player you drafted for six years, and his only options is arbitration and not free agency, then why would this not work?

Because the players would go on strike, they wouldnt play for year to year contracts for the league minimum..

[BaselBimbooooo]

I would think that the average career span being shorter would make this work more. If you outright own the rights to the player you drafted for six years, and his only options is arbitration and not free agency, then why would this not work?



.

because the nflpa would never agree to it.