CanadianPat'sFan

Parity is what we have that no other league has which is why NFL is the most popular league. We have 32 markets which have football and if we go down that route we will result in teams possibly folding or moving. The players deep down know this but they are out for #1 which they should be but at the cost of the game may not be worth it (MLB in 94 and yes I was an Expo's fan). Rookie pay scales in comparison to the Vets in the league should be more of a priority with the CBA.

mgteich

I don't think that average players will be paid more in a no-cap world. I believe that the cap, the draft, the free agency system, and the personnel systems (IR, pension etc) are the cornerstones of what make the NFL work. 10% of the players might make more, maybe even alot more, in an uncapped system. That's why there is a union for the majority.

ScottieC

I have hope for this to be resolved - However, as soon as Congress gets involved - All hope is lost, and I think that may be coming by this time next year.

Lets hope everyone involved comes to their senses. Goodell can start by stopping with the inflammatory comments in the media and start working a truce between both sides - If this happens on his watch, he's gonna be a laughing stock - But at $12 Million a year, perhaps he does not care what others think about him.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Let them all talk - Haters Hate, that's what they do - We have three Lombardi's, how about you?

AndyJohnson

I dont buy the idea that without a cap 'football as we know it is over'.
That logic says that owners will be allowed to act like Dan Snyder and build an all-star team.
Um, it DOESNT WORK.
Look at all of the best teams in the NFL over the last 5 years, and what do yu find? Teams that put very little into Free Agency. Us, Pittsburgh, the Colts may be the 3 teams that spend the least on FA in the entire NFL. The Giants succeed in similar fashion. SD doesnt buy FAs they draft.
All of the perenielly awful teams are the big FA spenders.
Once and for all. The NFL is a league where players have short careers and decline quickly. A free agency system revolves around paying players for what they HAVE DONE. Those who have done a lot, are most often never going to play at the same level. (Or their own team often resigned them) When you can get players that their own team didnt resign at the cost of what they used to be, when they probably will never be that again, FREE AGENCY IS A FAILED WAY TO BUILD A TEAM.

What an uncapped system will do is allow teams to stay together. Sure awful teams may get stuck in a rut, but they dont now, and its almost NEVER because they bought a team and almost ALWAYS because of draft choices and young players developing.

Of course this is just my opinion, and I havent studied every angle, but if you disagree please show me the teams that have been successful building in free agency. (And there absolutely is an advantage in overspending in the current system, because cash spent and cap spent are not the same thing.)

Brettlax3434

Thats a good point but I have a feeling some teams would buy their way into winning. Imagine if a team signed all three raven LB's, fat albert, TJ Houz and TO, it would be a different level of buying a team then weve ever seen.

AndyJohnson

I dont think the NFL would be less popular without parity. I think the top 1/3 of the teams have 2/3 of the fans anyway. Parity lets the weak and small market teams give hope to their fans, but non-parity builds teams that are good for a long time and have a national fan base. The most popular teams in the NFL became that way, developing a national fan base, before there was a cap and parity. The Steelers, Cowboys, Fins, Raiders owned the 70s and built their fan base, Almost 40 years later they are the most popular teams for that reason. I'm sure the NFL wouldn't mind a little less interest in the Falcons in return for a national following for a team like the Pats (who in 20 years will probably be one of those teams with a huge national following because of the '00s).
IMO, parity as good for the league was only created to help sell a system the owners felt was more financially secure for them, and has nothing to do with the popularity of the league.
As the league got popular and the owners could make more money by enforcing a cap, a SIDE EFFECT was parity. Parity came along for the ride, it didnt create the popularity, and most people only think that because the NFL wanted you to so they told you that for years.

AndyJohnson

But thats the point, you dont buy winning teams. Its been proven over and over. Just because we can sit here and wonder what a team would look like if you amassed all-star talent, doesnt mean it will play well together on the field.
I think the only player you name who has ever won a SB is Ray Lewis. You named the best 6 players you could think of that were FAs, found 1 that ever won a SB, didnt consider the other 47 players on the team, and assume they would be winners. Just doesnt work that way. There are many reasons including continuity, the fact that many of those players are on the down side of their careers, the fact that no matter how much money a 'buy a title' owner is going to spend he wont spend it on depth and when the big name aging players get injured you stink at that position.

The NCAA is an example of an uncapped situation. Rather than pay (or some say you do that too) you recruit. If it was only about getting the best talent you would have perenniel powers and the best of the best would win championships every year. Instead you have 15-20 schools that go through ups and downs but are serious long term contenders. The 'buy as title' logic says you would have 2-3 NCAA teams that spend the most on coaches, facilities, recruit the best and win all the Championships. You don't have Boise State or Utah, or schools like Fla and USC and OKLAhoma having long stretches of medicority surrounding their great successes. USC was a disaster from about 1980 until Pete Carrol got there. Oklahoma had a similar stretch before Stoops. They stil had the name, the tradition and could recruit but assembling talent only made them considered underachievers.

Bottom line:
On an NFL team the worst 3 players you put out on the field (as full time players) have a lot more to do with being a Championship caliber team than the best 3 you put ouot on the field do. Many players can play very well without liabilities surrounding them, and none can play very well surrounded by liabilities. Thats why buying a champion will be very difficult in the NFL.

jmt57

The only NFL team I can think of that comes close to the concept of succeeding by building through free agency was the 2000 Ravens, but they had a lot of starters from the draft too. As I recall they picked up Sam Adams, Shannon Sharpe and Ben Coates as free agents that season, and Ron Woodson, Michael McCrary, Qadry Ismail and Tony Siragusa the year before. If I'm not mistaken Adams and many others were gone a year later due to salary cap issues.

The thing is, there are a lot of unknowns here. Are we looking at one uncapped year, and then back to similar salary cap and free agency rules? Or to the other extreme, with no college draft to go along with complete free agency (no RFA or ERFA)?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

mgteich

After the 2012 season, the draft would also go.

What you have argued (and I believe successfully) is that, UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM, franchise teams have been great at the draft and have not built their teams through free agency. So??? That is because free agency money is limited. If money is unlimited, are you really saying that some billionaire will not be able to build a team more from free agency than from the draft? There are lots of strategies with an unlimited free agency budget that would change the game. Small markets need no apply.

BOTTOM LINE
If there are 10 potential franchises over the next five years, and seven were given minimal free agent budgets and three were given unlimited free agent budgets, who would you expect to win? Why on earth wouldn't I sign Haynworth at $20M a year if that is what it took, if I had an unlimited budget?

Now, some would say that this means that many teams would lose money or be non-competitive. I would agree. Parity would be all but gone.

Frezo

What you say Andy has a lot of merit. What I see that could happen is the haves being able to offer ridiculous amounts of money to a couple of select players such as Ware and/or Fitzpatrick.

Let's roll the cameras for a bit longer and assume in 2012 we have a league with few or no rules. This is when marketing pros like Kraft and Jones can really go nuts knowing all of their profits will not be going anywhere except their own interests. These moneys can be spent on any number of things like stadium facilities, player facilities, player bribes?? What about collusion? Will it run rampant among players and owners alike? It's starting to sound like every man for himself. Before we know it some oil rich Kuwaiti sheik is buying the Bengals and building a 65,000 seat domed air conditioned stadium because he can. What's next? The Oakland Sonys? CHAOS!

Well I don't think it will ever get that far. The NFL controlling factions are too smart. At least they'd better be.