[Coededgeme]

And I think we're having a little bit of revisionist history with baseball. It wasn't that long ago that rumors about contracting teams were abound.

At no point in time was contraction an option. It was a bargaining tool for the owners. It never would have happened. It never could have happened.

[freeringsf]

CFB makes some pretty good points (especially the part about Eli Manning being vastly overrated).

With the way revenue sharing works and tv being the bulk of any team's money, the NFL really does have the worst argument for having a salary cap out of the four major sports. I do disagree with him that it doesn't help create parity though. However, I see the potential for abuse from "small market" teams in the NFL being far greater than they are in MLB. Some of those "small market" baseball teams take that revenue sharing and sit on their hands with their perennial crappy teams and are fine with it because they are making a profit. If you do that in the NFL where revenue sharing is a far greater percentage of a team's money (I would assume), then what stops a team from sitting on their hands and making a great profit with their revenue sharing. I know the cap doesn't force teams to spend money, but I think it indirectly makes them. I also believe it keeps the doldrums of the league far more competitive with the elite teams, even if many of those teams on each side of the spectrum stay there for a long time.

[ITYfl01c]

CFB makes some pretty good points (especially the part about Eli Manning being vastly overrated).

With the way revenue sharing works and tv being the bulk of any team's money, the NFL really does have the worst argument for having a salary cap out of the four major sports. I do disagree with him that it doesn't help create parity though. However, I see the potential for abuse from "small market" teams in the NFL being far greater than they are in MLB. Some of those "small market" baseball teams take that revenue sharing and sit on their hands with their perennial crappy teams and are fine with it because they are making a profit. If you do that in the NFL where revenue sharing is a far greater percentage of a team's money (I would assume), then what stops a team from sitting on their hands and making a great profit with their revenue sharing. I know the cap doesn't force teams to spend money, but I think it indirectly makes them. I also believe it keeps the doldrums of the league far more competitive with the elite teams, even if many of those teams on each side of the spectrum stay there for a long time.

To the last point, I think that's why the NFL has a salary floor. When that wasn't as prevalent, you'd have teams like the Cardinals or Bengals not spending anything, but it would be just fine because they were under the cap.

[searkibia]

To the last point, I think that's why the NFL has a salary floor. When that wasn't as prevalent, you'd have teams like the Cardinals or Bengals not spending anything, but it would be just fine because they were under the cap.

Yes but under CFB's regime they couldnt do that because the NFL would force the owners to sell and basically start over with a new owner who would spend..

So there..

[Coededgeme]

Way to generalize. Youre talking about if a team sucks the NFL would step in like a communistic government and take it over and force the OWNER, who bought it with their assets and force them to sell it regardless if its at a loss or a gain to them.

And its not limiting pay as much as its leveling the playing field which is what the SC does. A point you dont seem to grasp.

The point you don't grasp is that the league is one business. The NFL is a business, that has 32 franchises. These franchises compete against each other to be the best, because the selling of the game is what generates a profit for the business. If one of these franchises refuses to improve itself it's hurting the business therefore they needed to be correct.


as far as a salary cap, I find it utterly baffling how someone can support a salary cap while pretending something else is socialistic. You can't have it both ways, We are both throwing out socialistic ideas here. A salary cap, any way you cut it, for whatever reason is socialistic, it's anti-American.

Leveling the playing field is what all socialists use to describe their goals.

[freeringsf]

To the last point, I think that's why the NFL has a salary floor. When that wasn't as prevalent, you'd have teams like the Cardinals or Bengals not spending anything, but it would be just fine because they were under the cap.

Ah ok. I didn't realize there was an actual floor.

[Coededgeme]

Yes but under CFB's regime they couldnt do that because the NFL would force the owners to sell and basically start over with a new owner who would spend..

So there..

Under my regime, it would be three years of sucking without any interferrence from the league. Followed by a penalty year where the revenue would be reduced because a team that sucks is clearly not going to be a good draw, and why should all the other teams support your team who isn't pulling it's weight. If your team doesn't improve, then you face a higher penalty the next year, and if after five years, in the NFL, you haven't mustered one season over 5 wins, then yes, you would be forced to sell or give up control of the team at the very least. You are dragging the business down.

[Coededgeme]

To the last point, I think that's why the NFL has a salary floor. When that wasn't as prevalent, you'd have teams like the Cardinals or Bengals not spending anything, but it would be just fine because they were under the cap.

I'm a fan of a salary floor. I wish baseball would have one. Mind you baseballs monetary system is different and a floor wouldn't be required if your team actually was good(see the Rays). It would provide no purpose.