[Coededgeme]

Where would a small market team like the Colts be without a salary cap? Nice try but your point undermines your argument.

Not really. My point is that salary cap doesn't promote parity. The evidence is right there. I don't care if the parity isn't happening because of a smarter front office, or the willingness to spend more money than everyone else, the fact is that parity is not happening in the NFL. Not any more than any other sport.

[BaselBimbooooo]

Not really. My point is that salary cap doesn't promote parity. The evidence is right there. I don't care if the parity isn't happening because of a smarter front office, or the willingness to spend more money than everyone else, the fact is that parity is not happening in the NFL. Not any more than any other sport.

the colts would have never gotten to a super bowl because they never would have been able to keep peyton manning without a salary cap.

[searkibia]

the colts would have never gotten to a super bowl because they never would have been able to keep peyton manning without a salary cap.

Agreed, he really is missing the whole point of what the salary cap does.

[Coededgeme]

Oh I saw that but youre disregarding the fact that maybe, just maybe mind you, those teams drafted really well,developed their own players and have/had really good coaching staffs. Youre whining about parity and I dont understand because in football you never really know whos going to win it all. Getting rid of the salary cap would be disastrous for your parity rant. Thats when teams like the Redskins and Cowboys would literally ruin Free Agency and turn football into Baseball..

Ya know, where the Yankees and Red Sox are front runners every year and no one gives a shit about the Royals.

You mean the Red Sox who have missed the post season two out of the last three years to the small market Rays?
Or you mean the Detroit Lions who have had one season since 2000 with a winning record? Or how about the Patriots being in the post season 8 out of the last 9. (same as the Yankees)

It's easier in the NFL to get back to the post season because there are more post season slots, and the short schedule makes it easier to post a better record than your actual talent. Making it to the post season in football once every 8 years or so, isn't evidence of balance.

[vaalmerruutel]

Not really. My point is that salary cap doesn't promote parity. The evidence is right there. I don't care if the parity isn't happening because of a smarter front office, or the willingness to spend more money than everyone else, the fact is that parity is not happening in the NFL. Not any more than any other sport.

Two of the smallest markets in the NFL have won two of the last three Super Bowls. That cannot happen in MLB. When small market MLB teams' good young players reach late stages of arbitration, thay have to trade them away. The only team that was able to win a WS after doing that was the Marlins and they still haven't even won a division in their history. Fluke.

[searkibia]

You mean the Red Sox who have missed the post season two out of the last three years to the small market Rays?
Or you mean the Detroit Lions who have had one season since 2000 with a winning record? Or how about the Patriots being in the post season 8 out of the last 9. (same as the Yankees)

It's easier in the NFL to get back to the post season because there are more post season slots, and the short schedule makes it easier to post a better record than your actual talent. Making it to the post season in football once every 8 years or so, isn't evidence of balance.

No, its evidence on those teams striking out on draft day and having shitty coaches and GMs. THe lions have had a plethora of busts to reflect this, only recently hitting on Suh, Megatron and Stafford (So Far) whereas before they sucked due to their Joey Harrington, Mike Williams and Charles Rogers debacles.

Again, your argument is weak.

[searkibia]

Two of the smallest markets in the NFL have won two of the last three Super Bowls. That cannot happen in MLB. When small market MLB teams' good young players reach late stages of arbitration, thay have to trade them away. The only team that was able to win a WS after doing that was the Marlins and they still haven't even won a division in their history. Fluke.

Do Flukes play into parity?

[yxn2dC07]

Not really. My point is that salary cap doesn't promote parity. The evidence is right there. I don't care if the parity isn't happening because of a smarter front office, or the willingness to spend more money than everyone else, the fact is that parity is not happening in the NFL. Not any more than any other sport.

Just because certain teams have more "success" doesn't mean parity doesn't exist.

The New York Giants won the Superbowl last year. They also got swept by the Redskins and lost to both the Eagles and Seahawks during the season.

The Packers won it the year before. They lost that year to the Redskins, Dolphins, and Lions.

The year before, the Saints won it. And while they steamrolled most of their competition that year, they weren't even able to get past the 7-9 Seahawks in the playoffs.

I could go on and on.

You pick an 11 year window and act like it means anything -- but accept the fact that certain teams get lucky with quarterbacks (the 3 teams you mentioned include two top 10 draft picks who panned out and a late-round draft pick who is considered by some people as the best quarterback in the world), coaches, and other players and will have sustained success. It doesn't mean there isn't parity.

[ITYfl01c]

Agreed, he really is missing the whole point of what the salary cap does.

All but two NFC teams have made it to the Super Bowl in the past 20 years.
Over 70% of teams in the NFL (23 of 32) have made it to the Super Bowl in that span, even with the recent Patriots/Colts/Steelers surge.

The MLB can't boast that percentage. While we're at it, since we're using the Patriots/Colts/Steelers as a reference, it seems only fair to point out that the Yankees/Red Sox/Braves account for almost 40% of all WS appearances in the last 20 years.

[Coededgeme]

My problem with the salary cap, isn't he salary cap per se, it's the fact that it's not the best solution, but it's the simplest solution that you are going to be able to get the owners to agree upon, because it's primary goal is to put money back in the owners pocket.

There are better ways to encourage competitiveness. A salary floor makes much more sense than a salary cap. A financial penalty to teams who go three years in a row without showing improvement. Significant revenue sharing(not necessary in the NFL of course) etc. It's just silly when you see people promoting the salary cap as a good model, when there is no evidence it promotes parity, the only evidence is the same as in MLB, it promotes smart front offices. The Mets, aren't perenial contenders even though they are traditionally among the highest payroll in baseball. The Cardinals are constant contenders, with medium range payroll, and in one of the smallest markets in baseball.

[yxn2dC07]

I'll add that I think the new rookie wage scale will go even further to create parity in the league.

[Coededgeme]

the colts would have never gotten to a super bowl because they never would have been able to keep peyton manning without a salary cap.

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.

[searkibia]

My problem with the salary cap, isn't he salary cap per se, it's the fact that it's not the best solution, but it's the simplest solution that you are going to be able to get the owners to agree upon, because it's primary goal is to put money back in the owners pocket.

There are better ways to encourage competitiveness. A salary floor makes much more sense than a salary cap. A financial penalty to teams who go three years in a row without showing improvement. Significant revenue sharing(not necessary in the NFL of course) etc. It's just silly when you see people promoting the salary cap as a good model, when there is no evidence it promotes parity, the only evidence is the same as in MLB, it promotes smart front offices. The Mets, aren't perenial contenders even though they are traditionally among the highest payroll in baseball. The Cardinals are constant contenders, with medium range payroll, and in one of the smallest markets in baseball.

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.

[freeringsf]

My problem with the salary cap, isn't he salary cap per se, it's the fact that it's not the best solution, but it's the simplest solution that you are going to be able to get the owners to agree upon, because it's primary goal is to put money back in the owners pocket.

There are better ways to encourage competitiveness. A salary floor makes much more sense than a salary cap. A financial penalty to teams who go three years in a row without showing improvement. Significant revenue sharing(not necessary in the NFL of course) etc. It's just silly when you see people promoting the salary cap as a good model, when there is no evidence it promotes parity, the only evidence is the same as in MLB, it promotes smart front offices. The Mets, aren't perenial contenders even though they are traditionally among the highest payroll in baseball. The Cardinals are constant contenders, with medium range payroll, and in one of the smallest markets in baseball.

Has there ever been an argument that the cap isn't there to help the owners make money?

[GustavM]

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.

I didn't hear anyone complaining.

[searkibia]

Has there ever been an argument that the cap isn't there to help the owners make money?

Hence being the OWNERS...

Tell me, in what business does the OWNER not want to make money??

[Coededgeme]

All but two NFC teams have made it to the Super Bowl in the past 20 years.
Over 70% of teams in the NFL (23 of 32) have made it to the Super Bowl in that span, even with the recent Patriots/Colts/Steelers surge.

The MLB can't boast that percentage. While we're at it, since we're using the Patriots/Colts/Steelers as a reference, it seems only fair to point out that the Yankees/Red Sox/Braves account for almost 40% of all WS appearances in the last 20 years.

Last 21 years, 22 out of 30 teams in baseball have made it to the world series, that is 73.3% Go to the arbitrary 20 years, and you have 20 out of 30 teams in the world series for a 66.6%....yep that salary cap is helping tremendously.

The salary cap doesn't make the difference, it's the front office that makes the difference. That is the entire point of opposing a salary cap. The ONLY purpose of a salary cap is to give the owners more money.

[freeringsf]

All but two NFC teams have made it to the Super Bowl in the past 20 years.
Over 70% of teams in the NFL (23 of 32) have made it to the Super Bowl in that span, even with the recent Patriots/Colts/Steelers surge.

The MLB can't boast that percentage. While we're at it, since we're using the Patriots/Colts/Steelers as a reference, it seems only fair to point out that the Yankees/Red Sox/Braves account for almost 40% of all WS appearances in the last 20 years.

I get what you're saying, but it isn't exactly fair to include the Braves in there considering they are in the opposite league. Obviously the NFC has been plenty paritiful. I hope that's a word.

[BaselBimbooooo]

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.

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

[freeringsf]

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.

Those are actually some pretty good points. TV contracts are split up unlike how the Yankees make so much money because of their on YES network. However, it was pretty apparent that the Cowboys were largely buying their dynasty (with some help from the Vikings). Considering the worth of the Dallas Cowboys compared to other teams, they would have more money to spend than other teams.