Thread: Salary Cap Could Pose Problems For Some......

Originally Posted by soulman

The problem with that is the players and the owners have most of the bread which leaves the fans with the shit to eat. Despite popular belief nobody in the NFL is taking a step backwards because of all this. The cost of attending a game won't go down.

You forget one thing, soulman...there are certain teams in the league who don't fill their stadiums to capacity. When this doesn't happen, they start blacking out in-market games on TV. I don't doubt that the league as a whole is not taking a step back, but there are a select number of teams who are. Revenue sharing in the case of of a team outspending the salary cap would do wonders for those teams who aren't doing so well with drawing fans and therefore suffering in the TV market shares as well.

Originally Posted by Dagan81

You forget one thing, soulman...there are certain teams in the league who don't fill their stadiums to capacity. When this doesn't happen, they start blacking out in-market games on TV. I don't doubt that the league as a whole is not taking a step back, but there are a select number of teams who are. Revenue sharing in the case of of a team outspending the salary cap would do wonders for those teams who aren't doing so well with drawing fans and therefore suffering in the TV market shares as well.

Dags the TV revenue goes into one big pot and all of the teams share equally in that pot. That's the biggest source of revenue for the league. The amount of revenue they receive is not reduced for games which are blacked out. That is anticipated when the contracts are signed. Gate receipts, concessions and parking may suffer when a team doesn't sell out but how much of a dollar difference is there if you fill an 80,000 seat stadium to 80% capacity and a 65,000 seat stadium to 100% capacity?

As for the salary cap I remind you that the NFL is not like MLB. No team can outspend the salary cap. It's not allowed and after the new CBA is signed there will be a very high cash minimum (95%) of the cap which must be spent. The salary expenditures between team will not be all that great.

My only point is that as long as pro football remains as popular as it is teams will continue to raise prices to whatever the traffic will bear. Nobody in the NFL is having to bite the bullet very hard over the state of the economy.

Originally Posted by soulman

Dags the TV revenue goes into one big pot and all of the teams share equally in that pot. That's the biggest source of revenue for the league. The amount of revenue they receive is not reduced for games which are blacked out. That is anticipated when the contracts are signed. Gate receipts, concessions and parking may suffer when a team doesn't sell out but how much of a dollar difference is there if you fill an 80,000 seat stadium to 80% capacity and a 65,000 seat stadium to 100% capacity?

As for the salary cap I remind you that the NFL is not like MLB. No team can outspend the salary cap. It's not allowed and after the new CBA is signed there will be a very high cash minimum (95%) of the cap which must be spent. The salary expenditures between team will not be all that great.

My only point is that as long as pro football remains as popular as it is teams will continue to raise prices to whatever the traffic will bear. Nobody in the NFL is having to bite the bullet very hard over the state of the economy.

I am well aware of the fact that the NFL's salary infrastructure is nothing like MLB. But I'm saying that one way or another, teams should divy out some revenue and spread the wealth to the franchises that struggle making ends meet. The league AS A WHOLE is doing just fine, but as I was saying, there are a few teams out there that are struggling.

As far as the 95% expenditures of the salary cap, it's both a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing because it forces teams to do what they can to stay competitive. It's a curse because it cuts into a team's ability to remain competitive over a long stretch of years by forcing a team to fill up their salary cap over the course of a full year; in other words, the NFL is trying to further avoid team dynasties by doing this. It's what George H.W. Bush would have called "Voodoo Economics," albeit in a slightly different arena.

Originally Posted by Dagan81

I am well aware of the fact that the NFL's salary infrastructure is nothing like MLB. But I'm saying that one way or another, teams should divy out some revenue and spread the wealth to the franchises that struggle making ends meet. The league AS A WHOLE is doing just fine, but as I was saying, there are a few teams out there that are struggling.

As far as the 95% expenditures of the salary cap, it's both a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing because it forces teams to do what they can to stay competitive. It's a curse because it cuts into a team's ability to remain competitive over a long stretch of years by forcing a team to fill up their salary cap over the course of a full year; in other words, the NFL is trying to further avoid team dynasties by doing this. It's what George H.W. Bush would have called "Voodoo Economics," albeit in a slightly different arena.

Dags, they do divy up the revenues. That's what I'm trying to say. It's not the income that's a problem it's the outflow. Some teams have higher expenses than others. Some teams are not as well managed as others. As socialistic as the NFL is in some regards it's run by a bunch of capitalists who don't like having to bail out their bretheren because they don't run their teams well. Jerry Jones bitches about this all the time.

The 95% of the cash cap just means that some teams won't be able to get away with "funny money" accounting in order to keep themselves above the cap minimum that's all. Teams will have to pony up more or less equally.

Originally Posted by soulman

Dags, they do divy up the revenues. That's what I'm trying to say. It's not the income that's a problem it's the outflow. Some teams have higher expenses than others. Some teams are not as well managed as others. As socialistic as the NFL is in some regards it's run by a bunch of capitalists who don't like having to bail out their bretheren because they don't run their teams well. Jerry Jones bitches about this all the time.

The 95% of the cash cap just means that some teams won't be able to get away with "funny money" accounting in order to keep themselves above the cap minimum that's all. Teams will have to pony up more or less equally.

Oh, okay. Sorry if I was starting to piss you off a little bit right there. I figured that I would take the opportunity to ask questions and to opine in kind.

Originally Posted by Dagan81

I am well aware of the fact that the NFL's salary infrastructure is nothing like MLB. But I'm saying that one way or another, teams should divy out some revenue and spread the wealth to the franchises that struggle making ends meet. The league AS A WHOLE is doing just fine, but as I was saying, there are a few teams out there that are struggling.

As far as the 95% expenditures of the salary cap, it's both a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing because it forces teams to do what they can to stay competitive. It's a curse because it cuts into a team's ability to remain competitive over a long stretch of years by forcing a team to fill up their salary cap over the course of a full year; in other words, the NFL is trying to further avoid team dynasties by doing this. It's what George H.W. Bush would have called "Voodoo Economics," albeit in a slightly different arena.

I don't bother highlighting , but you mentioned avoiding dynasties and that's good ..... I hate dynasties. It gets tiresome and boring seeing the same teams win win win all the time. If it's not the Bears , I love it when a N.O. Saints teams win the SB, and I want to puke when I see the Steelers, Pats etc win.

Originally Posted by Blue Horse-shoe

I don't bother highlighting , but you mentioned avoiding dynasties and that's good ..... I hate dynasties. It gets tiresome and boring seeing the same teams win win win all the time. If it's not the Bears , I love it when a N.O. Saints teams win the SB, and I want to puke when I see the Steelers, Pats etc win.

I think dynasties are good for any sport. A dynasty lasts a few years, but never forever unless you're the New York Yankees (thank God my favorite team is always contending for the World Series every year). I don't have a problem with the New England Patriots and Pittsburgh Steelers winning multiple championships over a period of time so long as the opportunity for teams like the Bears to win one is present.

I think that when UCLA was winning 10 NCAA Championships in 12 seasons in men's college basketball, more people tuned into the sport because they wanted to know what was going on and if they could continue their string of success. In essence, UCLA's period of unparralled (sp?) success lasted from 1964 through 1980, when the Bruins played in the NCAA Championship Game against Louisville. With the exception of an NCAA Championship in 1995 and three straight Final Four appearances in the mid 2000s, UCLA has not been the same program that it was under John Wooden and Larry Brown. The same held true for the Steelers during the 1980s. They were not that good. And the Packers were just awful from 1968 to 1991.

Dynasties produce pop culture icons too, so that gives us something to look forward to. The Packers of the 1960s and the Steelers of the 1970s (for the matter, the 49ers of the 1980s and 1990s) all were tremendously popular, both loved and hated. They were good for the game of football. Had the Bears been able to make a dent in that during the 1980s instead of Mike Ditka making coaching mistakes and our quarterbacks being so terrible, the Bears would have been talked about in the same light. When it's your team that is in the spotlight, life is hunky dory, but when it's not, life sucks. That's just nature. Things happen in cycles for most teams, and you just have to learn to live with it. I hate this system where the NFL tries to crush all possible avenues toward building a team that wins multiple championships in multiple years.

Originally Posted by Dagan81

I think dynasties are good for any sport. A dynasty lasts a few years, but never forever unless you're the New York Yankees (thank God my favorite team is always contending for the World Series every year). I don't have a problem with the New England Patriots and Pittsburgh Steelers winning multiple championships over a period of time so long as the opportunity for teams like the Bears to win one is present.

I think that when UCLA was winning 10 NCAA Championships in 12 seasons in men's college basketball, more people tuned into the sport because they wanted to know what was going on and if they could continue their string of success. In essence, UCLA's period of unparralled (sp?) success lasted from 1964 through 1980, when the Bruins played in the NCAA Championship Game against Louisville. With the exception of an NCAA Championship in 1995 and three straight Final Four appearances in the mid 2000s, UCLA has not been the same program that it was under John Wooden and Larry Brown. The same held true for the Steelers during the 1980s. They were not that good. And the Packers were just awful from 1968 to 1991.

Dynasties produce pop culture icons too, so that gives us something to look forward to. The Packers of the 1960s and the Steelers of the 1970s (for the matter, the 49ers of the 1980s and 1990s) all were tremendously popular, both loved and hated. They were good for the game of football. Had the Bears been able to make a dent in that during the 1980s instead of Mike Ditka making coaching mistakes and our quarterbacks being so terrible, the Bears would have been talked about in the same light. When it's your team that is in the spotlight, life is hunky dory, but when it's not, life sucks. That's just nature. Things happen in cycles for most teams, and you just have to learn to live with it. I hate this system where the NFL tries to crush all possible avenues toward building a team that wins multiple championships in multiple years.

Good points , but what I should have said is seeing the same teams in the playoffs year after year. I like more variety.

Originally Posted by Blue Horse-shoe

Good points , but what I should have said is seeing the same teams in the playoffs year after year. I like more variety.

The best mix of what you are talking about that I find is in Major League Baseball. Every year, there are at least two to three new teams who make the playoffs that didn't the year before. This season, the Pirates and Indians or Tigers are set to make it to the playoffs, all while the Yankees, the Red Sox, and the Phillies have been making the playoffs almost every season now for the past several years. Pro football is close to that, but by and large, you see the same teams most every year go to the playoffs. It's interesting how this is the case when Major League Baseball doesn't have a hard salary cap while the NFL does.