PDA

View Full Version : Should NFL adopt a system similar to Major League Baseball?



hawaiiansteel
06-19-2011, 12:41 AM
the title of this article should have been: "Why the Salary Cap Hurts Agents like Leigh Steinberg" :moon


Why the salary cap hurts football

Should the NFL adopt a system similar to that of Major League Baseball?

by Leigh Steinberg
JUNE 16, 2011


Since 1993, the salary cap system has negatively impacted the NFL in a variety of ways. Its main benefit has been the fact that it has provided a structure that the NFL and players agreed upon, facilitating uninterrupted play since 1987.

Labor peace has greatly accelerated the dominance in this country of the NFL over other sports, with fans favoring the NFL over the next most popular sport by a two to one margin. That branding advantage allowed players and owners to engage in a united effort to creatively develop new revenue sources, creating unprecedented financial success.

But the cap undermines many fundamental football principles and has short and long term destructive effects on the play of the game. It is a classic case of the unintended consequences that occur from a system based on financial rather than football considerations.

http://cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com/c1910342/media_center/images/rendered/blog/wysiwyg/montana2.jpg

Gone are the days where NFL teams can stack talent at the quarterback position.

The cap operates like a progressive income tax, redistributing the roster depth of a championship team to allow "parity.” Cap limitations mean that a team can no longer have Pro Bowl and star players at every starting position, even if it has drafted and coached them in a superior way. Financial limitations prevent a team from being able to afford the cap hit from five star offensive linemen.

The concept of "team" is undercut.

Contracts that extend over multiple years are reviewed every year and cuts need to be made. That means that a team and player who have a long history—which benefits team continuity, player security & stability, and fan's long term familiarity with players—may be forced to part ways. Happy team-player marriages are broken up.

This creates unnecessary turnover and destroys the fan's relationship with players. Free agency has led to less player movement than veterans pushed to find new teams due to cap considerations.

The redistribution of talent is designed to prevent the maintenance of long-term dynasties. Even though the cap can't completely overcome the advantages of stable and wise ownership, astute management, and superior coaching, it rewards mediocrity.

Excellence in administration and coaching should be rewarded, not penalized. Dominant franchises—from the Green Bay Packers of the sixties, Pittsburgh Steelers of the seventies and San Francisco 49ers of the eighties and nineties—did not hurt the NFL. If anything, they enhanced its popularity. Those franchises achieved national fame with fans all over the country. Bart Starr, Terry Bradshaw, Mean Joe Greene, Joe Montana, Steve Young, Jerry Rice, Troy Aikman, Emmitt Smith and Michael Irvin became national superstars and symbols of excellence. Superstars capture the public imagination and create long-term interest.

Cap limitations destroy depth at all positions. Paying a group of stars at premium levels means that the backups are largely rookies or veterans at the minimum. This produces a rapid drop-off in player talent when injuries occur. The entire course of a team's Super Bowl drive will be altered by a backup lineman or quarterback assuming that critical position.

The days when Joe Montana was backed-up by Steve Young (who was backed-up by Steve Bono) are over. This creates ragged play and amplifies the effect of injuries. It makes it much less likely for a team to repeat a Super Bowl win.

Highly drafted rookies with huge guarantees in their contracts are forced into service too early in their careers. Because a team can't afford an aging starting quarterback and his heavily compensated backup, the most beneficial developmental process for that rookie is altered. Young players who would benefit from a year or two of backing-up and learning their craft are rushed and may have their confidence and learning process destroyed.

Virtually none of the top quarterbacks from the 1999 draft are still in the league. Think of how Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Dante Culpepper and Cade McNown might have beeen stars in their primes if they had been given more tutelage time.

Keep in mind, the salaries in most veteran packages are not guaranteed. Twenty years ago, a player signing a three-year contract for between $800,000 and $1.2 million might underperform the first year. But teams would generally allow that player to continue with the team for the second year, betting he would improve and not risking losing his services to another team.

http://cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com/c1910342/media_center/images/rendered/blog/wysiwyg/bledsoe.jpg

Drew Bledsoe's rookie contract took up 55% of the pool.

Today each year of salary is heavily scrutinized prior to each season and players are often asked to drastically reduce their existing compensation or they are cut. This creates a belief among players that contracts have no security and that a good year of performance should immediately lead to a renegotiation. Much player-team conflict has resulted.

The rookie salary cap never worked to limit rookie salaries. It merely created a disproportionate amount of guaranteed money for those players taken at the top of the first round. Many of those players received massive guarantees. The draft has never been an exact science, busts and booms abound. Teams were forced to keep high draft picks who clearly were underperforming to avoid the instant acceleration of pro-rated guaranteed money. And players who were more productive, but drafted later, were forced to sign long-term contracts which they quickly outperformed.

This resulted in dysfunction in the relationship of productivity to compensation. The first contract negotiated under the rookie cap—Drew Bledsoe back in 1993—took up roughly 55% of the pool for the first player picked, leaving the remaining rookies to fight over what was left.

Because of rules which accelerate pro-rated signing bonuses for veterans who are traded, are cut or retire because of injury, teams which make a poor decision or two regarding long-term contracts for veterans face large amounts of "dead" or unavailable current cap resources. A system promoting parity would not see certain teams excluded from free agency and signings in a rebuilding process because of "dead" money.

Since the primary benefit of the cap was the fact that it insured labor peace, the current negotiations could remedy its obvious defects.

Follow Leigh on Twitter: @SteinbergSports

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Why ... tball.html (http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Why-the-salary-cap-hurts-football.html)

Oviedo
06-20-2011, 08:06 AM
As far as rookie contracts the NFL needs a slotting structure that prevents unproven talent from having some of the biggest contracts on the team, but in general the NFL having a any other type of structure like MLB would destroy the NFL like it has MLB. Do you really want half the NFL fans to quit caring half way through the season because their teams are out of contention? That is how MLB is and its why no one cares after NFL training camps open unless you are in St Louis, Boston or New York. Everyone is nothing more than schedule filler.

RuthlessBurgher
06-20-2011, 10:08 AM
As far as rookie contracts the NFL needs a slotting structure that prevents unproven talent from having some of the biggest contracts on the team, but in general the NFL having a any other type of structure like MLB would destroy the NFL like it has MLB. Do you really want half the NFL fans to quit caring half way through the season because their teams are out of contention? That is how MLB is and its why no one cares after NFL training camps open unless you are in St Louis, Boston or New York. Everyone is nothing more than schedule filler.

Right now, half the AFC North quits caring half way through the season *cough*Ohio teams*cough*

Oviedo
06-20-2011, 10:29 AM
As far as rookie contracts the NFL needs a slotting structure that prevents unproven talent from having some of the biggest contracts on the team, but in general the NFL having a any other type of structure like MLB would destroy the NFL like it has MLB. Do you really want half the NFL fans to quit caring half way through the season because their teams are out of contention? That is how MLB is and its why no one cares after NFL training camps open unless you are in St Louis, Boston or New York. Everyone is nothing more than schedule filler.

Right now, half the AFC North quits caring half way through the season *cough*Ohio teams*cough*

More an anomoly than a league wide problem enabled by the incompetance primary with the Bumgals ownership.

I really do think the Stains are on the right track with some of the recent talent they have brought in but this is a "lost" year because of the lock out and the new coaches coming in.

feltdizz
06-20-2011, 11:01 AM
As far as rookie contracts the NFL needs a slotting structure that prevents unproven talent from having some of the biggest contracts on the team, but in general the NFL having a any other type of structure like MLB would destroy the NFL like it has MLB. Do you really want half the NFL fans to quit caring half way through the season because their teams are out of contention? That is how MLB is and its why no one cares after NFL training camps open unless you are in St Louis, Boston or New York. Everyone is nothing more than schedule filler.

Right now, half the AFC North quits caring half way through the season *cough*Ohio teams*cough*

More an anomoly than a league wide problem enabled by the incompetance primary with the Bumgals ownership.

I really do think the Stains are on the right track with some of the recent talent they have brought in but this is a "lost" year because of the lock out and the new coaches coming in.

There are about 8 teams who need to get their azz in gear...

I understand why Jerry Jones and Snyder are frustrated with the revenue sharing... Teams like the Jags, Miami, Tampa have to find ways to fill their stadiums. Funny that all 3 teams are in Florida and filled with successful college teams but can't find ways to get people in the seats for the NFL.

Oviedo
06-20-2011, 11:47 AM
As far as rookie contracts the NFL needs a slotting structure that prevents unproven talent from having some of the biggest contracts on the team, but in general the NFL having a any other type of structure like MLB would destroy the NFL like it has MLB. Do you really want half the NFL fans to quit caring half way through the season because their teams are out of contention? That is how MLB is and its why no one cares after NFL training camps open unless you are in St Louis, Boston or New York. Everyone is nothing more than schedule filler.

Right now, half the AFC North quits caring half way through the season *cough*Ohio teams*cough*

More an anomoly than a league wide problem enabled by the incompetance primary with the Bumgals ownership.

I really do think the Stains are on the right track with some of the recent talent they have brought in but this is a "lost" year because of the lock out and the new coaches coming in.

There are about 8 teams who need to get their azz in gear...

I understand why Jerry Jones and Snyder are frustrated with the revenue sharing... Teams like the Jags, Miami, Tampa have to find ways to fill their stadiums. Funny that all 3 teams are in Florida and filled with successful college teams but can't find ways to get people in the seats for the NFL.

That is because of the transplants here in Fla. There are as many if not more fans for non-Fla teams than Fla teams. Orlando and Central Florida is ruled by Steelers fans. If you look at what people wear and what is on their cars it is a clearly a Steelers hotbed. Far more than Tampa and even more than that for the jags which have been assigned the Central Fla TV market by the idiots at the NFl and no one here cares about them.

Miami is the only team with a hardcore set of fans in the state but most of them are in the south Fla area.

TallyStiller
06-20-2011, 12:14 PM
As far as rookie contracts the NFL needs a slotting structure that prevents unproven talent from having some of the biggest contracts on the team, but in general the NFL having a any other type of structure like MLB would destroy the NFL like it has MLB. Do you really want half the NFL fans to quit caring half way through the season because their teams are out of contention? That is how MLB is and its why no one cares after NFL training camps open unless you are in St Louis, Boston or New York. Everyone is nothing more than schedule filler.

Right now, half the AFC North quits caring half way through the season *cough*Ohio teams*cough*

More an anomoly than a league wide problem enabled by the incompetance primary with the Bumgals ownership.

I really do think the Stains are on the right track with some of the recent talent they have brought in but this is a "lost" year because of the lock out and the new coaches coming in.

There are about 8 teams who need to get their azz in gear...

I understand why Jerry Jones and Snyder are frustrated with the revenue sharing... Teams like the Jags, Miami, Tampa have to find ways to fill their stadiums. Funny that all 3 teams are in Florida and filled with successful college teams but can't find ways to get people in the seats for the NFL.

I drove down to Tampa for our game there in late September last season. It was 94 degrees that day, the game started at 1 PM, and it felt like it was a hundred freaking thirty in the stands. College teams play night games in FLA whenever they can... cooler weather AND more chance for the fans to get liquored up and rowdy. Can't do that in the NFL because of TV. Makes it so you'd rather stay home and watch.

Oviedo
06-20-2011, 01:35 PM
As far as rookie contracts the NFL needs a slotting structure that prevents unproven talent from having some of the biggest contracts on the team, but in general the NFL having a any other type of structure like MLB would destroy the NFL like it has MLB. Do you really want half the NFL fans to quit caring half way through the season because their teams are out of contention? That is how MLB is and its why no one cares after NFL training camps open unless you are in St Louis, Boston or New York. Everyone is nothing more than schedule filler.

Right now, half the AFC North quits caring half way through the season *cough*Ohio teams*cough*

More an anomoly than a league wide problem enabled by the incompetance primary with the Bumgals ownership.

I really do think the Stains are on the right track with some of the recent talent they have brought in but this is a "lost" year because of the lock out and the new coaches coming in.

There are about 8 teams who need to get their azz in gear...

I understand why Jerry Jones and Snyder are frustrated with the revenue sharing... Teams like the Jags, Miami, Tampa have to find ways to fill their stadiums. Funny that all 3 teams are in Florida and filled with successful college teams but can't find ways to get people in the seats for the NFL.

I drove down to Tampa for our game there in late September last season. It was 94 degrees that day, the game started at 1 PM, and it felt like it was a hundred freaking thirty in the stands. College teams play night games in FLA whenever they can... cooler weather AND more chance for the fans to get liquored up and rowdy. Can't do that in the NFL because of TV. Makes it so you'd rather stay home and watch.

Yes. The heat through the end of October is definitely a factor but it is still about the fact that the Bucs and the Jags really don't have a strong fanbase.

Move the Jags to LA and it would be a winner for the NFL.

feltdizz
06-20-2011, 03:40 PM
Yes. The heat through the end of October is definitely a factor but it is still about the fact that the Bucs and the Jags really don't have a strong fanbase.

Move the Jags to LA and it would be a winner for the NFL.

LA fans are worse than Miami.... LA doesn't work because of traffic, fickle fans and the need for photo opts and you can't get those at football games like you can at basketball games.

All these teams need domes like AZ.... AZ couldn't fill half a stadium due to the heat but now they are packed. Get stadiums where the roof can open or close and watch these teams flourish. Jags are the only team that need to move IMO and with a new stadium and new coach they could turn it around too.

TallyStiller
06-21-2011, 10:42 AM
Definitely agree that Jacksonville getting a team in the first place was quite possibly the biggest WTF moment in pro sports history... if you count Milwaukee as part of Green Bay's market, Jacksonville is the smallest market in any of the 4 major sports. If they'd've drafted Tim Tebow and started him immediately last year it would've been like throwing raw meat to a chained pit bull in terms of tapping into their local market, and might for a time have built them a following, but long term, I agree the franchise just isn't viable.

Tampa, on the other hand, is something like the 13th largest TV market nationally, and has Orlando just over an hour away. They have quite a few loyal fans down there, but no fan base outside of the Clippers' and Bungles' has been more mistreated over the years. Hugh Culverhouse spent 20 years being the worst owner in the history of sports, Donald Sterling notwithstanding... then they got decent ownership when Malcolm Glazer took over, put a product on the field in the Dungy years, and sold out week in week out. All the good will generated and momentum created was destroyed, though, when the Glazers became the poster boys for the NFL's cross ownership rules by going to Britain and buying Man U, after which the Bucs became a second class property and an afterthought. The fans rightfully felt like the rug had been yanked out from under them, and bailed on the franchise in droves as the losses piled up.

All I can say is, Thank God we've got the Rooneys. :tt2

hawaiiansteel
06-21-2011, 03:18 PM
Updated: June 21, 2011

Sources: 48 percent share for players

By Chris Mortensen
ESPN


Among the details NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is revealing to owners Tuesday at the owners' meeting in Rosemont, Ill., is that in the next proposed agreement players will receive a 48 percent share of "all revenue," without the $1-billion-plus credit off the top that had been a point of contention in earlier negotiations, according to sources familiar with the presentation.

Under the new formula being negotiated, players will receive 48 percent of all revenue and will never dip below a 46.5 percent take of the money, sources said.

Proposed CBA Details

Details of a proposed collective bargaining agreement being pitched to NFL owners Tuesday, according to sources:

• Players get 48 percent of "all revenue," without extra $1-billion-plus off top that previously had been requested by owners.

• Players' share will never dip below 46.5 percent, under new formula being negotiated.

• Teams required to spend close to 100 percent of the salary cap.

• Rookie wage scale part of deal but still being "tweaked."

• Four years needed for unrestricted free-agent status. Certain tags will be retained, but still being discussed.

• 18-game regular season designated only as negotiable item and at no point is mandated in deal.

• New 16-game Thursday night TV package beginning in 2012.

• Owners still will get some expense credits that will allow funding for new stadiums.

• Retirees to benefit from improved health care, pension benefits as revenue projected to double to $18 million by 2016.

In the previous collective bargaining agreement, players received approximately 60 percent of "total revenue" but that did not include $1 billion that was designated as an expense credit off the top of the $9 billion revenue model. Owners initially were seeking another $1 billion in credit only to reduce that amount substantially before exercising the lockout on March 13.

Ultimately, the two sides have decided to simplify the formula, which will eliminate some tedious accounting audits of the credit the players have allowed in the previous deal. NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith has stated that players were actually receiving around 53 percent of all revenues instead of the much advertised 60 percent.

Owners still will get some expense credits that will allow funding for new stadium construction, sources said.

A rookie wage scale will be part of the new deal but is still being "tweaked," and the much-discussed 18-game regular season will be designated only as a negotiable item with the players and at no point is mandated in a potential agreement. A new 16-game Thursday night TV package beginning in 2012 will be the source of new revenue.

As revenues are projected to possibly double by 2016 to $18 billion annually, retired players will benefit from improved health and pension funding that is expected to increase significantly.

Players believe they can justify a 48 percent take because of the projected revenue growth, as well as built-in mechanisms that require teams to spend close to 100 percent of the salary cap, a source told ESPN.com's John Clayton. The mandatory minimum spending increase is an element that concerns lower-revenue clubs, sources say.

For example, if the 2011 salary cap were to be at $120 million, a team would have to have a cash payroll of close to $120 million. In the previous collective bargaining agreement, the team payroll floor was less than 90 percent of the salary cap and was only in cap figures, not cash.

The higher floor proposal could cause some problems for the lower revenue teams such as the Cincinnati Bengals and the Buffalo Bills. Along with the salary cap, teams have to pay an average of about $27 million a year in benefits.

A league source told ESPN's Sal Paolantonio that there will not be a vote on a new collective bargaining agreement Tuesday.

"This is strictly informational. There is nothing to vote on," the source told ESPN.

The negotiating teams for the owners and players, led by Goodell and Smith, are expected to return to the table most likely Wednesday and Thursday in Boston, hoping to build off the momentum of three strong weeks of talks under the supervision of a court-appointed mediator, U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan.

Cautious expectations on the two sides reaching an agreement in principle are varied, ranging from one-to-three weeks with the hopes of beginning a new league year (free agency, etc.) by mid-July.

If and when an agreement is reached, all players whose contracts have expired and have four or more years of experience are expected to be unrestricted free agents, sources familiar with the talks told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter. Certain tags will be retained but that still is being discussed.

Players are willing to commit to at least a 10-year labor agreement if the sides can agree on the terms, sources told Clayton.

Any breakdown in talks could result in the loss of preseason games and threaten the opening of the regular season. The first preseason game, at the Pro Football Hall of Fame, is scheduled for Aug. 7.

"This is the season to get a deal," Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay said before entering the conference room where representatives from all 32 teams were being updated by Goodell and his negotiating committee. "I think the logic that you're pushing on both sides is saying why get a deal Oct. 1, or whenever, when you could have had July 7, or whatever."

Tuesday marks Day 98 of the lockout, the NFL's first work stoppage since 1987 and the longest in NFL history.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6687485

Flasteel
06-21-2011, 07:33 PM
I drove down to Tampa for our game there in late September last season. It was 94 degrees that day, the game started at 1 PM, and it felt like it was a hundred freaking thirty in the stands. College teams play night games in FLA whenever they can... cooler weather AND more chance for the fans to get liquored up and rowdy. Can't do that in the NFL because of TV. Makes it so you'd rather stay home and watch.

I was at that game and was absolutely miserable. I'm a native here and couldn't stand it. Hell, I lived in a friggin' tent in the middle of the Mojave Desert for the better part of 2 years...sometimes training in full Nulear-Biological-Chemical suits while it was 120 degrees in the shade. That was one of the worst heat-related experiences of my life and I will never go to another 1pm game that time of the year.

Two very good reasons. The many fans of other teams (don't forget that Miami is also the only team that has a fan base going back further than '76) and the heat.

The Bucs have a pretty large fan base, but they seem to be pretty fickle. Going 11-5 and having a franchise quarterback will put a lot of their fair-weather butts in the seats.

By the way...I'm all about getting rid of the cap. The Redskins, Cowboys and others have proven that you can't buy championships in this league. I hate losing good players simply because we can't pay them their "market value".

TallyStiller
06-22-2011, 11:00 AM
I drove down to Tampa for our game there in late September last season. It was 94 degrees that day, the game started at 1 PM, and it felt like it was a hundred freaking thirty in the stands. College teams play night games in FLA whenever they can... cooler weather AND more chance for the fans to get liquored up and rowdy. Can't do that in the NFL because of TV. Makes it so you'd rather stay home and watch.

I was at that game and was absolutely miserable. I'm a native here and couldn't stand it. Hell, I lived in a friggin' tent in the middle of the Mojave Desert for the better part of 2 years...sometimes training in full Nulear-Biological-Chemical suits while it was 120 degrees in the shade. That was one of the worst heat-related experiences of my life and I will never go to another 1pm game that time of the year.

Two very good reasons. The many fans of other teams (don't forget that Miami is also the only team that has a fan base going back further than '76) and the heat.

The Bucs have a pretty large fan base, but they seem to be pretty fickle. Going 11-5 and having a franchise quarterback will put a lot of their fair-weather butts in the seats.

By the way...I'm all about getting rid of the cap. The Redskins, Cowboys and others have proven that you can't buy championships in this league. I hate losing good players simply because we can't pay them their "market value".

How about the pre cap post free agency '90's? Frankly, I believe we'd have multiple rings from that decade if the current system had been in place. We lose Rod Woodson, Chad Brown, multiple offensive line talents, Neil O'Donnell, and still keep on fielding AFCC caliber teams. Just because they can't buy championships doesn't mean they won't continue to try... egomaniacs like Jones and Snyder are just as amped up about winning in March as they are in February, and their efforts to buy titles end up destroying their teams AND ours.

I thought Steinberg's article was the most self serving piece of crap I've seen in a long time. All of the championship teams he cited were built prior to the era of free agency - Dallas won a couple titles after it started in '93, but the nucleus was built before. To me, free agency has to exist hand in hand with a salary cap... the only person who is served otherwise is Leigh Steinberg, who if memory serves is the guy who negotiated that sweetheart deal that paid Neil O'Donnell $25 mil to jump ship for New York. Wonder what the fee he collected off that one looked like?

Oviedo
06-22-2011, 12:04 PM
Getting rid of the cap would be a disaster for the NFL just like it is for MLB. Just like you have a few MLB teams buying the premier pitchers you would have a few teams buying the franchise QBs which you have to have to be successful.

No thanks, keep the cap.

feltdizz
06-22-2011, 12:19 PM
Getting rid of the cap would be a disaster for the NFL just like it is for MLB. Just like you have a few MLB teams buying the premier pitchers you would have a few teams buying the franchise QBs which you have to have to be successful.

No thanks, keep the cap.

Once again... these are 2 different monsters. You can't buy 3 franchise QB's and even if you did I'm sure they would want playing time so they can increase their salary/endorsement deals

Pitchers also play once every 3 to 5 games over a 159 game season.
You can go one inning with the pitcher striking out the side and never see a fielder move.

There are way too many moving parts in one football play...

and like I previously stated... we have been to more SB's in the last 6 years than the Yankee's and Redsox and Phillies. Clearly you need more than pitching to win in the MLB.

RuthlessBurgher
06-22-2011, 12:24 PM
Getting rid of the cap would be a disaster for the NFL just like it is for MLB. Just like you have a few MLB teams buying the premier pitchers you would have a few teams buying the franchise QBs which you have to have to be successful.

No thanks, keep the cap.

Once again... these are 2 different monsters. You can't buy 3 franchise QB's and even if you did I'm sure they would want playing time so they can increase their salary/endorsement deals

Pitchers also play once every 3 to 5 games over a 159 game season.
You can go one inning with the pitcher striking out the side and never see a fielder move.

There are way too many moving parts in one football play...

and like I previously stated... we have been to more SB's in the last 6 years than the Yankee's and Redsox and Phillies. Clearly you need more than pitching to win in the MLB.

The Yankees and Phillies and Red Sox haven't been to ANY Super Bowls!!! :wink:

Then again, the Steelers are 0-fer in World Series. :lol:

Oviedo
06-22-2011, 12:31 PM
Getting rid of the cap would be a disaster for the NFL just like it is for MLB. Just like you have a few MLB teams buying the premier pitchers you would have a few teams buying the franchise QBs which you have to have to be successful.

No thanks, keep the cap.

Once again... these are 2 different monsters. You can't buy 3 franchise QB's and even if you did I'm sure they would want playing time so they can increase their salary/endorsement deals

Pitchers also play once every 3 to 5 games over a 159 game season.
You can go one inning with the pitcher striking out the side and never see a fielder move.

There are way too many moving parts in one football play...

and like I previously stated... we have been to more SB's in the last 6 years than the Yankee's and Redsox and Phillies. Clearly you need more than pitching to win in the MLB.

Sorry, but we can disagree. There is absolutley nothing good about having an NFL without a salary cap. I see no benefits at all.

papillon
06-22-2011, 03:56 PM
Getting rid of the cap would be a disaster for the NFL just like it is for MLB. Just like you have a few MLB teams buying the premier pitchers you would have a few teams buying the franchise QBs which you have to have to be successful.

No thanks, keep the cap.

Once again... these are 2 different monsters. You can't buy 3 franchise QB's and even if you did I'm sure they would want playing time so they can increase their salary/endorsement deals

Pitchers also play once every 3 to 5 games over a 159 game season.
You can go one inning with the pitcher striking out the side and never see a fielder move.

There are way too many moving parts in one football play...

and like I previously stated... we have been to more SB's in the last 6 years than the Yankee's and Redsox and Phillies. Clearly you need more than pitching to win in the MLB.

Pitching, defense and enough hitting to get you into the playoffs is all you need. Once you're in the playoffs, pitching and defense will win enough games in a best out of 7 series to take home the title, IMO.

On another note, I always found it curious that the veteran players never made a stink about the contract rookies were signing. Take a guy likr James Harrison that didn't sign a huge rookie contract and had to work his tail off to get one big contract that he deserved. Shouldn't he be upset that a player who has never played a down in the NFL gets a contract comparable to the one he actually earned?

The NFLPA didn't do veteran players any favors over the years in my estimation. Put a rookie scale in and make them earn their big payday and keep the cap. Split the money and lets play football.

Pappy

feltdizz
06-22-2011, 04:05 PM
Getting rid of the cap would be a disaster for the NFL just like it is for MLB. Just like you have a few MLB teams buying the premier pitchers you would have a few teams buying the franchise QBs which you have to have to be successful.

No thanks, keep the cap.

Once again... these are 2 different monsters. You can't buy 3 franchise QB's and even if you did I'm sure they would want playing time so they can increase their salary/endorsement deals

Pitchers also play once every 3 to 5 games over a 159 game season.
You can go one inning with the pitcher striking out the side and never see a fielder move.

There are way too many moving parts in one football play...

and like I previously stated... we have been to more SB's in the last 6 years than the Yankee's and Redsox and Phillies. Clearly you need more than pitching to win in the MLB.

Pitching, defense and enough hitting to get you into the playoffs is all you need. Once you're in the playoffs, pitching and defense will win enough games in a best out of 7 series to take home the title, IMO.

On another note, I always found it curious that the veteran players never made a stink about the contract rookies were signing. Take a guy likr James Harrison that didn't sign a huge rookie contract and had to work his tail off to get one big contract that he deserved. Shouldn't he be upset that a player who has never played a down in the NFL gets a contract comparable to the one he actually earned?

The NFLPA didn't do veteran players any favors over the years in my estimation. Put a rookie scale in and make them earn their big payday and keep the cap. Split the money and lets play football.

Pappy

With great pitching you don't need great defense... good will get you over the hump because it will be fly balls and weak grounders.

Besides the double play there aren't many plays that involve more than 3 or 4 guys in order to get an out. All it takes is one bat to hit a HR...

When you look at football even the easiest play like an extra point or a punt it takes 7 to 8 players for the play to be executed correctly. Football is the ultimate team sport and I don't think teams can stack players anymore given the amount of talent out there.

as far as the rookie cap is concerned... I agree 100%. I guess players are OK with a chosen few getting rewarded for having the best resume's/job credentials.

hawaiiansteel
06-23-2011, 02:47 AM
Terrell Suggs: Rookies should have to earn their money

Posted by Michael David Smith on June 22, 2011


When Terrell Suggs was drafted 10th overall by the Ravens in 2003, he thought it was great that Top 10 picks could get big contracts before ever playing a down in the NFL. He doesn’t think that anymore.

In an interview with Sports with Coleman on Fox 1370 Sports Radio in Baltimore, Suggs said he supports a rookie wage scale and hopes that’s a part of the next Collective Bargaining Agreement — even though he would have hated a rookie wage scale when he was a rookie.

“When I was coming in as a rookie I thought that was the biggest baloney I had ever heard,” Suggs said. “But now being a vet, being on the other side of the fence, and seeing the vets that have been in the league for years, have longevity and still haven’t reached that payday, I think it’s pretty unfair, and definitely the rookies should have to earn their money.”

Obviously, Suggs is speaking out of self-interest. He already got his when he was a rookie, and now that he’s a veteran he wants the veterans to get a bigger slice of the pie.

But that doesn’t make him wrong, and Suggs offered an interesting assessment of how rookies in the NFL might change their attitudes if they knew they’d have to earn their money on their second contracts, rather than getting tens of millions of dollars on their first contracts.

“You’d have rookies that would come in and show up to work with their blue-collar shirts and their hard hats,” Suggs said. “We would have less prima donnas in the league.”

Suggs also had some interesting comments on the ongoing labor negotiations, suggesting that the lawyers for both sides have an incentive to drag things out.

“Who’s really winning? One is definitely the lawyers for the players’ union and the owners,” Suggs said. “The lawyers definitely aren’t hurting.”

And Suggs weighed in on Steelers linebacker LaMarr Woodley, who said the Ravens would never win a Super Bowl with Joe Flacco at quarterback.

“LaMarr Woodely is one of the guys who likes to talk out of his a$$,” Suggs said. “I’m not too concerned.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... eir-money/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/22/terrell-suggs-rookies-should-have-to-earn-their-money/)

Oviedo
06-23-2011, 08:08 AM
Terrell Suggs: Rookies should have to earn their money

Posted by Michael David Smith on June 22, 2011


When Terrell Suggs was drafted 10th overall by the Ravens in 2003, he thought it was great that Top 10 picks could get big contracts before ever playing a down in the NFL. He doesn’t think that anymore.

In an interview with Sports with Coleman on Fox 1370 Sports Radio in Baltimore, Suggs said he supports a rookie wage scale and hopes that’s a part of the next Collective Bargaining Agreement — even though he would have hated a rookie wage scale when he was a rookie.

“When I was coming in as a rookie I thought that was the biggest baloney I had ever heard,” Suggs said. “But now being a vet, being on the other side of the fence, and seeing the vets that have been in the league for years, have longevity and still haven’t reached that payday, I think it’s pretty unfair, and definitely the rookies should have to earn their money.”

Obviously, Suggs is speaking out of self-interest. He already got his when he was a rookie, and now that he’s a veteran he wants the veterans to get a bigger slice of the pie.

But that doesn’t make him wrong, and Suggs offered an interesting assessment of how rookies in the NFL might change their attitudes if they knew they’d have to earn their money on their second contracts, rather than getting tens of millions of dollars on their first contracts.

“You’d have rookies that would come in and show up to work with their blue-collar shirts and their hard hats,” Suggs said. “We would have less prima donnas in the league.”

Suggs also had some interesting comments on the ongoing labor negotiations, suggesting that the lawyers for both sides have an incentive to drag things out.

“Who’s really winning? One is definitely the lawyers for the players’ union and the owners,” Suggs said. “The lawyers definitely aren’t hurting.”

And Suggs weighed in on Steelers linebacker LaMarr Woodley, who said the Ravens would never win a Super Bowl with Joe Flacco at quarterback.

“LaMarr Woodely is one of the guys who likes to talk out of his a$$,” Suggs said. “I’m not too concerned.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... eir-money/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/22/terrell-suggs-rookies-should-have-to-earn-their-money/)


The true nature of the "labor brotherhood" shows itself...give me mine and screw everyone else!!!!!!!!!!

feltdizz
06-23-2011, 08:53 AM
Terrell Suggs: Rookies should have to earn their money

Posted by Michael David Smith on June 22, 2011


When Terrell Suggs was drafted 10th overall by the Ravens in 2003, he thought it was great that Top 10 picks could get big contracts before ever playing a down in the NFL. He doesn’t think that anymore.

In an interview with Sports with Coleman on Fox 1370 Sports Radio in Baltimore, Suggs said he supports a rookie wage scale and hopes that’s a part of the next Collective Bargaining Agreement — even though he would have hated a rookie wage scale when he was a rookie.

“When I was coming in as a rookie I thought that was the biggest baloney I had ever heard,” Suggs said. “But now being a vet, being on the other side of the fence, and seeing the vets that have been in the league for years, have longevity and still haven’t reached that payday, I think it’s pretty unfair, and definitely the rookies should have to earn their money.”

Obviously, Suggs is speaking out of self-interest. He already got his when he was a rookie, and now that he’s a veteran he wants the veterans to get a bigger slice of the pie.

But that doesn’t make him wrong, and Suggs offered an interesting assessment of how rookies in the NFL might change their attitudes if they knew they’d have to earn their money on their second contracts, rather than getting tens of millions of dollars on their first contracts.

“You’d have rookies that would come in and show up to work with their blue-collar shirts and their hard hats,” Suggs said. “We would have less prima donnas in the league.”

Suggs also had some interesting comments on the ongoing labor negotiations, suggesting that the lawyers for both sides have an incentive to drag things out.

“Who’s really winning? One is definitely the lawyers for the players’ union and the owners,” Suggs said. “The lawyers definitely aren’t hurting.”

And Suggs weighed in on Steelers linebacker LaMarr Woodley, who said the Ravens would never win a Super Bowl with Joe Flacco at quarterback.

“LaMarr Woodely is one of the guys who likes to talk out of his a$$,” Suggs said. “I’m not too concerned.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... eir-money/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/22/terrell-suggs-rookies-should-have-to-earn-their-money/)


The true nature of the "labor brotherhood" shows itself...give me mine and screw everyone else!!!!!!!!!!

The true nature of Suggs showed itself. I guess Jerry Jones shows the true nature of all the owners. :roll:

RuthlessBurgher
06-23-2011, 12:10 PM
“LaMarr Woodely is one of the guys who likes to talk out of his a$$,” Suggs said. “I’m not too concerned.”

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110402150456/illogicopedia/images/b/b3/Ace-ventura-butt_510.jpg

Excuse me sir, but do you have a mint? Perhaps some Binaca? I'd like to "@$$" you a few questions. :wink:

Flasteel
06-23-2011, 12:40 PM
Just because they can't buy championships doesn't mean they won't continue to try... egomaniacs like Jones and Snyder are just as amped up about winning in March as they are in February, and their efforts to buy titles end up destroying their teams AND ours.

This a great point, which would have to be addressed through some other mechanism if the cap were to go away. Players aren't about the money nearly as much as they're about ego...who's getting paid more than me. As soon as some of these jack-ass owners start tossing truckloads of gold at the players they want to sign, contracts could get out of hand very quickly.

Perhaps the rules of free agency should determine the growth of salaries instead of a spending cap. No player could be signed to a new contract, which exceeds a 10% net increase over the highest paid contract at that position from the previous year. That way, players don't go just to the highest bidder - they actually consider other factors like opportunities to start, the quality of the team, or particular schemes which benefit their skill set. This would allow for a great deal of salary increase for players who are on the rise or coming off rookie contracts, but not allow for the top wages to get out of control.

Why should we have to jettison promising players we develop at one position, because we have too much salary locked up elsewhere? It is nothing short of a fallacy that you can buy championships. Let competitive balance and parity be addressed through revenue sharing and the rules of free agency.

feltdizz
06-23-2011, 12:52 PM
Snyder has tried to buy a SB and it isn't working... he can't even buy a playoff team.

Players may run to the money but we see what happens right after they sign... the papers and media hound them and their every move is scrutinized. They don't have enough money to buy a good team. This isn't a case of good drafts and solid players being locked into long contracts like the old days.

These owners will spend themselves into the red and the fans will turn on the players when they don't meet unrealistic expectations.

How has Snyder destroyed our team? He can't. It may skew the market a little but most owners point this out in negotiations. As long as we use the draft who cares how much they over pay for a player. We lost ARE... he left, didn't produce and we won a SB without him. Nate Washington left, was overpaid/over valued and we didn't miss a beat.

We may lose a vet who wants a big pay day but there are so many good players who want to win that I think we will never have to worry about suffering due to Jones or Snyder.

These are 2 guys who have won how many SB's and playoff games the last 10 years?

TallyStiller
07-01-2011, 05:07 PM
Snyder has tried to buy a SB and it isn't working... he can't even buy a playoff team.

Players may run to the money but we see what happens right after they sign... the papers and media hound them and their every move is scrutinized. They don't have enough money to buy a good team. This isn't a case of good drafts and solid players being locked into long contracts like the old days.

These owners will spend themselves into the red and the fans will turn on the players when they don't meet unrealistic expectations.

How has Snyder destroyed our team? He can't. It may skew the market a little but most owners point this out in negotiations. As long as we use the draft who cares how much they over pay for a player. We lost ARE... he left, didn't produce and we won a SB without him. Nate Washington left, was overpaid/over valued and we didn't miss a beat.

We may lose a vet who wants a big pay day but there are so many good players who want to win that I think we will never have to worry about suffering due to Jones or Snyder.

These are 2 guys who have won how many SB's and playoff games the last 10 years?

Snyder hasn't because the salary cap has limited the damage he can do. He hasn't been active making big splashes in free agency because he's cap strapped. They're cutting players just to get under the cap, which makes it so that giving big $$$ contracts eventually has consequences if you pick the wrong guys.

In the pre - cap '90's, our teams were absolutely decimated by deeper pocketed owners in other cities. Neil O'Donnell, Leon Searcy, Duval Love, Chad Brown, Yancey Thigpen, Rod Woodson, Carnell Lake, Hardy Nickerson... core player after core player that we were unable to keep because somebody came along and threw ridiculous money at them. How is our franchise rewarded for having the foresight to draft these guys (with the exception of Love) - a number of them on the second day, no less, and the ability to develop them into stars? By watching the Jets, the Seahawks with their Microsoft money, Eddie DeBartolo's Niners, etc. walk in and poach them.

In baseball's system, the Yankees, for example, went out and gave Jason Giambi $120 mil to come over from Colorado. When the steroid era ended, it became painfully obvious that Giambi's career came out of a syringe. So what do they do? They go out and take on A Rod's $275 mil contract and keep right on winning. Carl Pavano's a $40 mil mistake? Just offer Roger Clemens $16 mil to come out of retirement at midseason and pitch you into the playoffs! There's no end to it...

As it stands now, teams can come in and take some guys, they often overpay them, but we can hang onto core guys because other teams can't run ridiculous money out there due to the cap. Nate and ARE are a far cry from Leon Searcy, Neil O'Donnell and Chad Brown in terms of their value to those '90's teams. I cite Snyder and Jones as examples because they are the owners most aggressive about foolishly throwing money at free agents, but certainly there are other larger markets whose owners could, in a capless system, recreate the bad old days of the '90's by ripping the guts out of our team. I firmly believe that those teams would have won multiple titles if the cap that exists now had existed then, and I believe equally strongly that if the cap went away (which was the original point of the article and this thread) that the Steelers would be absolutely capped at being the competitive equivalent of the Minnesota Twins - a nice team that makes the playoffs sometimes, but nobody believes has a realistic shot of winning it all.

aggiebones
07-01-2011, 05:43 PM
I'm not reading anything here, but am going to say this:

Take Leigh Steinberg and throw him in the river. Divide all the money and give each player the same salary. Then rings become more important. If they don't want to play, sell insurance.


Now I'm fine with the current system, but hell will freeze over before Leigh should be allowed to ruin football like he and his croonies have ruined baseball.