ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
I wasn't going to mention the possbility of an arab sheik or a foreign company buying a team and having someone charged with winning. I would expect that this would happen in 2013. However, I also don't think that it will get that far. The owners won't let it happen. The union won't let it happen. And they are jointly too stupid, then the government won't let it happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
I wasn't going to mention the possbility of an arab sheik or a foreign company buying a team and having someone charged with winning. I would expect that this would happen in 2013. However, I also don't think that it will get that far. The owners won't let it happen. The union won't let it happen. And they are jointly too stupid, then the government won't let it happen.
I'm with you until the mention of the government. The thought of oil payola being waved in front of that motley crew isn't very reassuring.
I too am not reassured by the threat of government intervention. However, the threat is there, from Obama's new friend. My hope is that this threat will get the union and the owners to sign a new long-term agreement.
My hope, which will not come to fruition, is that both the league and the players will tell Obama and company to go piss up a rope.
__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius
Well I don't think it will ever get that far. The NFL controlling factions are too smart. At least they'd better be.
Call me a pessimist, but I'm surprised that hasn't happened already. (Sorry, soccer doesn't count; I'm talking about NFL, MLB, NBA or NHL team names.) College bowl games have already gone from subliminal advertising (Peach Bowl, which was advertising for Georgia peaches) to co-sponsorship (Chick-Fil-A Peach Bowl) to complete corporate sponsorship (Chick-Fil-A-Bowl) as well as others (goodbye Cotton Bowl and hello Fiesta Tostitos Bowl.)
All game long we have the (fill in the name of the sponsor) catch of the game, play of the game, etc. and stadiums have long since been renamed; it's just a matter of time before the Home Depot Falcons play the Ford Lions or the New England Gillettes face the Philadelphia Comcasts.
__________________
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.
Call me a pessimist, but I'm surprised that hasn't happened already. (Sorry, soccer doesn't count; I'm talking about NFL, MLB, NBA or NHL team names.) College bowl games have already gone from subliminal advertising (Peach Bowl, which was advertising for Georgia peaches) to co-sponsorship (Chick-Fil-A Peach Bowl) to complete corporate sponsorship (Chick-Fil-A-Bowl) as well as others (goodbye Cotton Bowl and hello Fiesta Tostitos Bowl.)
All game long we have the (fill in the name of the sponsor) catch of the game, play of the game, etc. and stadiums have long since been renamed; it's just a matter of time before the Home Depot Falcons play the Ford Lions or the New England Gillettes face the Philadelphia Comcasts.
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)?
Didnt they not win another playoff game after that until this year? Hard to call that a success.
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.
You are assuming by removing existing rules only one variable changes. The NFL is what it is because the owners understand they are working together, not against each other. What you are saying is that without written restraints they will automatically do what is in thier worst interest. In the end losing money to win championships will drive owners out of the league.
Why does it matter if their is parity? Parity only exists becuase it is in the owners best interest. We only feel parity matters becuase we have been told it does.
Would you not be an NFL fan if there wasn't parity? Weren't you a fan before the cap? In the 70s when there were less than a dozen strong teams and a bunch of teams with no chance?
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.
By the way you are also arguing that although building through free agency with some limtations (and really if all the best teams barely participate how limited are you?) fails miserably, more of what doesn't work is guaranteed to succeed.
I wasn't going to mention the possbility of an arab sheik or a foreign company buying a team and having someone charged with winning. I would expect that this would happen in 2013. However, I also don't think that it will get that far. The owners won't let it happen. The union won't let it happen. And they are jointly too stupid, then the government won't let it happen.
The owners vote on who gets to buy a team, so don't count on a sale detrimental to the other owners to happen in 2013 or anytime after that.
Re: An Uncapped World?
Linear Mode
