If the NFL became uncapped... (1 Viewer)

[MLBrandow]

Honestly, I think I might quit watching football if the salary caps ended. It would be just like baseball, and I can't stand baseball.

I think I might get into hockey a lot more. I suppose I'm not basing this on anything too fundamental, other than when a competition becomes a "who can spend the most money", it loses its appeal rather than when everybody gets the same money to spend and it's a "what can you do with this?" type deal.

I don't personally want to see the Redskins and the Raiders every year for the next thirty Super Bowls....

It finally hit me how close and how real this is. I have a lot of faith in Tagliabue championing a movement to get a deal done very soon, but if it's not... I don't think I could watch football with the same passion.

 

[-OZ-]

Honestly, I think I might quit watching football if the salary caps ended. It would be just like baseball, and I can't stand baseball.

I think I might get into hockey a lot more. I suppose I'm not basing this on anything too fundamental, other than when a competition becomes a "who can spend the most money", it loses its appeal rather than when everybody gets the same money to spend and it's a "what can you do with this?" type deal.

I don't personally want to see the Redskins and the Raiders every year for the next thirty Super Bowls....

It finally hit me how close and how real this is. I have a lot of faith in Tagliabue championing a movement to get a deal done very soon, but if it's not... I don't think I could watch football with the same passion.

Spending $$$$ does not guarantee championships, especially if you can't hire a coaching staff. Washington could easily dominate, but Oakland wouldn't.Seattle might though.

 

[Don Quixote]

No salary cap in the NFL would be VERY different from MLB. Yanks and Red Sox get their millions from local TV revenue. NFL has no local TV revenue (unless you count the preseason).

There really wouldn't be much of a competitive edge to any team if they did away with the salary cap.

 

[MLBrandow]

No salary cap in the NFL would be VERY different from MLB. Yanks and Red Sox get their millions from local TV revenue. NFL has no local TV revenue (unless you count the preseason).

There really wouldn't be much of a competitive edge to any team if they did away with the salary cap.

Well, the teams with richer owners would be able to afford better players. Wouldn't the CBA nonrenewal eliminate the revenue sharing?

 

[Zaphod]

No salary cap in the NFL would be VERY different from MLB. Yanks and Red Sox get their millions from local TV revenue. NFL has no local TV revenue (unless you count the preseason).

There really wouldn't be much of a competitive edge to any team if they did away with the salary cap.

Actually, it would have a very dramatic effect on the competitive balance. There are some teams owned by millionaires and other teams owned by billionaires. Without a cap, those owners would simply purchase Lombardi instead of earning it.

 

[seahawk 17]

I have always been pro-cap....until Paul Allen bought the Seahawks.

 

[-OZ-]

I have always been pro-cap....until Paul Allen bought the Seahawks.

As a Lions fan, I didn't like it, until I realized Ford doesn't know football anyway.

 

[WhoDat]

Actually, it would have a very dramatic effect on the competitive balance

Agreed. It would look very much like baseball in a short time, as teams that sell out regardless of their team's W-L record (Skins, Chiefs, Giants, Jets, Cowboys) would have a HUGE competitive edge. Small market teams and or teams that have attendance which ebbs and flows with wins and losses would immediately fall way, way behind. It would get ugly in no time and be a horrible thing for the sport.

 

[Bevo]

I don't know, I watched the NFL for many years before there was a cap, I guess I would have to see how it works out whithout a cap before driving it into the ditch.

 

[jonessed]

I enjoy football a lot more now even though I did watch it prior to the cap. I guess my answer would be "yes, but not nearly as much".

 

[MLBrandow]

I enjoy football a lot more now even though I did watch it prior to the cap. I guess my answer would be "yes, but not nearly as much".

I think I'd agree with that.... I think a lot of people would.

 

[Dr. Malo]

I don't think we are gonna end up with out a collective bargaining agreement, they are really pushing hard and they have to do it. It's not in anyone's interest to not come to an agreement.

 

[Don Quixote]

No salary cap in the NFL would be VERY different from MLB. Yanks and Red Sox get their millions from local TV revenue. NFL has no local TV revenue (unless you count the preseason).

There really wouldn't be much of a competitive edge to any team if they did away with the salary cap.

Actually, it would have a very dramatic effect on the competitive balance. There are some teams owned by millionaires and other teams owned by billionaires. Without a cap, those owners would simply purchase Lombardi instead of earning it.

It's still a business, owners are out to make money, not find some toy to squander their billions. I don't see an owner spending an extra $100 million on salaries when the only economic gain they can receive is a 15% boost in ticket prices.ETA: Even in baseball, it's not the richest owners who spend the most. It's the largest-market teams that have the most to gain economically that spend the most.

 

[MLBrandow]

No salary cap in the NFL would be VERY different from MLB. Yanks and Red Sox get their millions from local TV revenue. NFL has no local TV revenue (unless you count the preseason).

There really wouldn't be much of a competitive edge to any team if they did away with the salary cap.

Actually, it would have a very dramatic effect on the competitive balance. There are some teams owned by millionaires and other teams owned by billionaires. Without a cap, those owners would simply purchase Lombardi instead of earning it.

It's still a business, owners are out to make money, not find some toy to squander their billions. I don't see an owner spending an extra $100 million on salaries when the only economic gain they can receive is a 15% boost in ticket prices.

As evidenced by the Florida Marlins and Arizona Diamondbacks of the MLB of late, it's possible to buy championships. Load up on talent one year, and bam. You are set for ticket sales for the next 3-4 when you dump all of those players.I don't really know enough about the inter-happenings of league management to be able to hold a lengthy debate here, but I fail to see how you can rationalize a team in a big market not spending a lot of money on big-name FAs.

How do you think the dynasties of the past came about?

 

[Steelers4Life]

No salary cap in the NFL would be VERY different from MLB. Yanks and Red Sox get their millions from local TV revenue. NFL has no local TV revenue (unless you count the preseason).

There really wouldn't be much of a competitive edge to any team if they did away with the salary cap.

Actually, it would have a very dramatic effect on the competitive balance. There are some teams owned by millionaires and other teams owned by billionaires. Without a cap, those owners would simply purchase Lombardi instead of earning it.

It's still a business, owners are out to make money, not find some toy to squander their billions. I don't see an owner spending an extra $100 million on salaries when the only economic gain they can receive is a 15% boost in ticket prices.ETA: Even in baseball, it's not the richest owners who spend the most. It's the largest-market teams that have the most to gain economically that spend the most.

Exactly. Baseball teams don't spend more because their owners are rich. It's because their teams generate more revenues. If George Steinbrenner owned the Pirates, he wouldn't be dropping an extra $100 million of his own money into the team if the Pirates couldn't generate the revenues to support it.God I hope the NFL never becomes like baseball.

 

[Slinger]

Chuck Norris would go nuts.

 

[Guzalot]

The salary cap benefits owners in the long run because player salaries stay in check. Also, because of more generous revenue sharing than MLB large market teams have less to gain by doing away with the cap. It's all about $ and the owners (as a group) understand this. The cap is here to stay. MLB will never again be the "national pastime", the fans have spoken.

 

[Don Quixote]

No salary cap in the NFL would be VERY different from MLB. Yanks and Red Sox get their millions from local TV revenue. NFL has no local TV revenue (unless you count the preseason).

There really wouldn't be much of a competitive edge to any team if they did away with the salary cap.

Actually, it would have a very dramatic effect on the competitive balance. There are some teams owned by millionaires and other teams owned by billionaires. Without a cap, those owners would simply purchase Lombardi instead of earning it.

It's still a business, owners are out to make money, not find some toy to squander their billions. I don't see an owner spending an extra $100 million on salaries when the only economic gain they can receive is a 15% boost in ticket prices.

As evidenced by the Florida Marlins and Arizona Diamondbacks of the MLB of late, it's possible to buy championships. Load up on talent one year, and bam. You are set for ticket sales for the next 3-4 when you dump all of those players.I don't really know enough about the inter-happenings of league management to be able to hold a lengthy debate here, but I fail to see how you can rationalize a team in a big market not spending a lot of money on big-name FAs.

How do you think the dynasties of the past came about?

AZ and FL thought spending money on players would be a way to build up their fan base, but it backfired and they lost money, which is why they subsequently did salaries dumps. The decisions in AZ and FL to both "buy a championship" and "dump the team" were both based on economics, not the fulfillment of some childhood ambition to win a championship. The owner of the KC Royals was the CEO of WalMart, I'm sure he has a good chunk of change in his pocket, but he hasn't gone around trying to buy a championship.As I said previously, I rationalize big-market teams not spending a lot because the NFL economics don't give very many advantages based on market-size. Every team gets an equal share of TV revenues and merchandising sales. It's the reason Green Bay hasn't left Green Bay all these years. The primary source of non-shared revenue is ticket sales (read: luxury boxes). I don't view that as sufficient to create a huge economic advantage.

ETA: On the dynasties of the past question, that was before the era of free agency, so not sure what you are trying to get at with that.

 

[Doug Drinen]

I don't know, I watched the NFL for many years before there was a cap, I guess I would have to see how it works out whithout a cap before driving it into the ditch.

Yep. If the NFL goes uncapped, we'll have to just be content to watch college football, where every team has an equal chance because their budgets are exactly the same . Go Vanderbilt!Seriously, I just can't understand why there are so many football fans who decry the baseball situation but happily watch college football. I have no way of verifying this, but I'd bet that the difference between Florida State's football budget and Duke's football budget is much bigger (percentagewise) than the Yankee-Royal gap. Where's the outrage?

 

[BlueOnion]

CBA Thread

The above thread has been pretty active in breaking down the problems between the big market owners, small market owners and the NFLPA.

The issue is not so much big market owners sharing their local revenue, but possibly small market teams giving up their autonomy of their small markets.

For instance, because Daniel Snyder sold the naming rights to FedEx field and he would be asked to pick up the difference in revenue because Green Bay does not opt to sell the naming rights to Lambeau Field, ultimately who should have more say on the naming rights of Lambeau field? The fans of Green Bay or the guy who has to eat the revenue loss for not selling the naming rights?

In response to the question, I would say most likely. I don't think the problem would ever get to MLB levels because the NFL would still share the majority of revenue.

 

[BlueOnion]

Wouldn't the CBA nonrenewal eliminate the revenue sharing?

No. The majority of NFL Revenues is from National revenue streams. I believe these to be regular season tickets, the national television contract and NFL merchandise. There may be others. Regardless, these revenues will still be shared.

 

[thayman]

CBA Thread

The above thread has been pretty active in breaking down the problems between the big market owners, small market owners and the NFLPA.

The issue is not so much big market owners sharing their local revenue, but possibly small market teams giving up their autonomy of their small markets.

For instance, because Daniel Snyder sold the naming rights to FedEx field and he would be asked to pick up the difference in revenue because Green Bay does not opt to sell the naming rights to Lambeau Field, ultimately who should have more say on the naming rights of Lambeau field? The fans of Green Bay or the guy who has to eat the revenue loss for not selling the naming rights?

In response to the question, I would say most likely. I don't think the problem would ever get to MLB levels because the NFL would still share the majority of revenue.

[/quot

Agree with Onion.....I dont think it would ever get the the level of MLB. But you have to figure that soon the owners will probably put aside their problems and get the CBA done. They really don't want the Cap to go away, and Gene Upshaw has been pretty firm in his stance of, "if it goes away, it's never coming back"

 

[crowe1130]

Sticking solely with the spirit of your question, would I stop watching if an uncapped NFL devloved into an MLB-style mess?

Absolutely. Half of the joy of the game would be gone for me. I watch the NFL because teams in places like Pittsburgh and Green Bay have a chance. If it got to the point where baseball is, meaning that 20 or so teams might as well not even show up for training camp, then what would be the point?

As much as I'd miss it, I'd definitely be done.

 

[BlueOnion]

Sticking solely with the spirit of your question, would I stop watching if an uncapped NFL devloved into an MLB-style mess?

Uncapped doesn't necessarily mean no revenue sharing.

 

[Kleck]

I don't know, I watched the NFL for many years before there was a cap, I guess I would have to see how it works out whithout a cap before driving it into the ditch.

Yep. If the NFL goes uncapped, we'll have to just be content to watch college football, where every team has an equal chance because their budgets are exactly the same . Go Vanderbilt!Seriously, I just can't understand why there are so many football fans who decry the baseball situation but happily watch college football. I have no way of verifying this, but I'd bet that the difference between Florida State's football budget and Duke's football budget is much bigger (percentagewise) than the Yankee-Royal gap. Where's the outrage?

 

[BigRed]

Honestly, I think I might quit watching football if the salary caps ended. It would be just like baseball, and I can't stand baseball.

ouch, that's gonna leave a markI don't see why "uncapped" would really be all THAT different - w/the signing bonus loophole, wealthier owners still have an advantage (eg Snyder). Fortunately, guys like him are too stupid to realize that throwing big $$ at "name" players (or even coaches) is hardly a magic formula for success. lol and GB it.

 

[slayer666]

Seriously, I just can't understand why there are so many football fans who decry the baseball situation but happily watch college football.  I have no way of verifying this, but I'd bet that the difference between Florida State's football budget and Duke's football budget is much bigger (percentagewise) than the Yankee-Royal gap.  Where's the outrage?

There are a lot more collegiate Division 1-A schools than there are professional baseball teams. I would expect a greater disparity in college football budgets. Besides, Duke is a basketball school that happens to field a football team. Not really a valid comparison in my opinion.

To answer the question... if the NFL turns into anything closely resembling MLB, then yes I would quit watching it. I used to be a diehard Cincinnati Reds fan. At the present time, I couldn't name you a single player on the team. I can't remember how far back it's been since I watched even a single inning of a baseball game.

 

[Lord Lucan]

For the possible implications, here are the top three in the English soccer Premier League for the last 15 years. Note that there are 20 teams in the Premier League. This is what happens when it's simply a case of who can buy the best players. Guess which team (currrently well clear at the top of this year's Premier League) was bought by a Russian mega-billionaire in 2003?

http://www.sportingchronicle.co.uk/premierleaguewinners.html

 

[crowe1130]

Sticking solely with the spirit of your question, would I stop watching if an uncapped NFL devloved into an MLB-style mess?

Uncapped doesn't necessarily mean no revenue sharing.

Agree, Onion.For me, though, the "spirit" of the question is whether or not I'd watch if the league became utterly unbalanced competitively. And for me, at least, the answer is no.

 

[BlueOnion]

Seriously, I just can't understand why there are so many football fans who decry the baseball situation but happily watch college football. I have no way of verifying this, but I'd bet that the difference between Florida State's football budget and Duke's football budget is much bigger (percentagewise) than the Yankee-Royal gap. Where's the outrage?

Not a fair comparison. If you want to look at the discrepenancy between the Yankees and Dodgers (almost 2:1) and then look at the difference between Florida State, Nebraska, Michigan, Notre Dame and USC you would probably find a much closer ratio than 2:1.In addition, the comparison is almost mute when you compare the Dodgers and Yankees (playing in the same league) and Florida State, Nebraska, Michigan, Notre Dame and USC who all play in different leagues.

But again, if you look at the NCAA as a whole, the league doesn't promote itself as saying all Division I team schools are competing on a level playing field. MLB on the other hand wants to promote all it's teams as having an equal shot which is clearly not the case. If MLB would come out and say, "If you cheer for a team in Kansas City, Minnesota, Milwaukee or Pittsburgh, well your team doesn't really have a chance but why don't you come give us your money anyway?"

 

[Festivus]

While I am 100% in favor of a salary cap, I thouroughly enjoyed watching the NFL before they had the cap. I expect that I would like it without a cap.

Teamwork, system, and repetion play a much bigger role in football than in baseball so I see less opportunity for NFL owners to simply "buy" a championship. Exhibit A would be the lack of bang for the buck that teams usually get with a big-money FA WR.

 

[BlueOnion]

While I am 100% in favor of a salary cap, I thouroughly enjoyed watching the NFL before they had the cap. I expect that I would like it without a cap.

Teamwork, system, and repetion play a much bigger role in football than in baseball so I see less opportunity for NFL owners to simply "buy" a championship. Exhibit A would be the lack of bang for the buck that teams usually get with a big-money FA WR.

You do realize that the time you speak of watching football there was no free agency either?And if you think an uncapped league would not be that bad, just understand there is no way players like Roethlisberger and Favre would never play with their respective team after their rookie contract.

 

[knowledge dropper]

I don't know, I watched the NFL for many years before there was a cap, I guess I would have to see how it works out whithout a cap before driving it into the ditch.

Yep. If the NFL goes uncapped, we'll have to just be content to watch college football, where every team has an equal chance because their budgets are exactly the same . Go Vanderbilt!Seriously, I just can't understand why there are so many football fans who decry the baseball situation but happily watch college football. I have no way of verifying this, but I'd bet that the difference between Florida State's football budget and Duke's football budget is much bigger (percentagewise) than the Yankee-Royal gap. Where's the outrage?

Amen. THE Ohio State University just paid Washington St. $450,000 to get out of an away game in 2009 to schedule another home game against probably some MAC team or San Jose St. COLLEGE FOOTBALL

OSU takes Washington State, Syracuse off schedule

Saturday, February 18, 2006

Ken Gordon

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Ohio State has three more holes in its football schedules after backing out of a game at Washington State and canceling a home-and-home series with Syracuse.

The Buckeyes were scheduled to travel to Washington in 2009 for a game either in Pullman or Seattle (the site never was finalized). That completed a home-and-home that began with the Cougars’ trip to Columbus in 2002.

But OSU decided to try and get another home game, instead.

The Buckeyes agreed to pay WSU $450,000 for backing out, said Cougars athletics director Jim Sterk. But OSU likely will make a several-million-dollar profit by turning that into a home game.

"It was strictly for economic reasons," said OSU associate athletics director Steve Snapp, who has taken over some of the football-scheduling duties.

Sterk said he was disappointed but not shocked.

"I thought at some point they might want to (cancel)," he said. "We had a healthy-sized penalty for them to get out. I thought it would make them hesitate. But I guess not."

Washington State plays home games in Martin Stadium, which is being expanded and will seat 42,000 by 2009. The other option was playing in Seattle’s Qwest Field, which seats 67,000.

Canceling the Syracuse series will not cost OSU, Snapp said. The Orangemen were to play in Columbus to open the 2007 season and the Buckeyes were headed to Syracuse in 2010.

OSU has two open dates in 2007.

kgordon@dispatch.com

 

[BoltBacker]

Where's the outrage?

I think the outrage is rightly directed toward the fact college football isn't decided by a playoff. One outrage at the absurd at a time. Until that's fixed why bother caring about the rest?A bunch of sportswriters sitting around voting is a good way to decide where to eat lunch, not decide who get's a free pass into a "championship" game.

 

[BlueOnion]

A bunch of sportswriters sitting around voting is a good way to decide where to eat lunch, not decide who get's a free pass into a "championship" game.

Ummm, playoff or BCS we will still have sports writers deciding who gets in and who doesn't.If you would like, you could do some research and see how the sports writers screwed South Dakota State from the Division II playoffs this past season.

 

[BoltBacker]

Ummm, playoff or BCS we will still have sports writers deciding who gets in and who doesn't.

They also have their say who gets intot he NCAA mens basketball tourney, but I don't think they decide the winner in quite the same way they do with football.

 

[BlueOnion]

Ummm, playoff or BCS we will still have sports writers deciding who gets in and who doesn't.

They also have their say who gets intot he NCAA mens basketball tourney, but I don't think they decide the winner in quite the same way they do with football.

Like I said, check out the hose job South Dakota State got in Division II.

 

[BlueOnion]

Made a mistake, it was the University of South Dakota. USD won their conference (the NCC). The teams that finished 2nd and 3rd in the NCC, South Dakota clearly handled; Nebraska-Omaha (59-14) and North Dakota (42-30).

However, when the sports writers decided who would and who would not go to the Division II college football playoff, University of South Dakota was not invited, but Nebraska-Omaha and North Dakota were.

 

[Mik789fl]

no