JaimeDeCurry Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 "Not having revenue sharing would create a league much like baseball. The Cowboys and Redskins would be the Yankees and Red Sox. The high-revenue teams would have the ability to keep their top free agents and sign a few of the other top ones when they hit the market." -John Clayton We all know that the Cowboys and Redskins top the charts as far as revenue is concerned. Would you like to see an NFL in which the top two to five teams were consistently able to cover the free agent market like in the MLB? Personally, I would love it. I would love to see epic battles between the 'Boys and 'Skins with the NFL's most talented and premier athletes. I know there's a lot to be said for parity and how it has made the NFL so successful, but as a Redskins fan I really hope revenue sharing gets canned and we're able to see intense All-Star games like this for years. For reference, here's a list of teams in order of revenue generation: 1. Redskins 2. Cowboys 3. Patriots 4. Texans 5. Eagles 6. Dolphins 7. Bears 8. Ravens 9. Broncos 10. Buccaneers 11. Panthers 12. Browns 12. Packers 14. Steelers 15. Titans 16. Seahawks 17. Giants 18. Chiefs 19. Jets 20. Saints 21. Chargers 22. Rams 23. Bills 24. Bengals 25. Raiders 26. Lions 27. Jaguars 28. Colts 29. Cardinals 30. Falcons 31. 49ers 32. Vikings I know revenue sharing will probably never go away, but I was just interested in seeing how fans of the top revenue-generating team would feel about it being excluded from the new CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedevilhimself Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I think it would be the biggest mistake the NFL could ever make . The competitive nature of the NFL has made it more and more popular . The fans expectations rise and rise , hell they boo a winning team here in DC and while it may seem a great idea in principle that massive revenue streem will dwindle as TV finds something else to shine on and fans start finding other things to do than watch the Redskins blow out the Vikings for the nth time ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I don't care if it would make us win the Super Bowl 10 times in the next 20 years. I would feel like we cheated to get it, and it just wouldn't be the same. Worst of all, I'm sure we would be looked at like Yankee fans are, and they just suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaimeDeCurry Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 I don't care if it would make us win the Super Bowl 10 times in the next 20 years. I would feel like we cheated to get it, and it just wouldn't be the same. Worst of all, I'm sure we would be looked at like Yankee fans are, and they just suck. Do you think Yankees fans or Red Sox fans feel like they cheated when they won their World Series titles? EDIT: Beside the, you know, steroids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 In a word, no. It would get pretty boring pretty darn quick if teams in smaller markets had that taken away from them, and a certain few teams dominated proceedings because they could garner all the top players. You'd be severely limiting the chances of an Arizona like last year getting their taste, and in turn attendances, without which there is NO game, would doubtless suffer if teams outside of the lucky few had little hope of success. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laxpunk2006 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Absolutely not. It will competely remove the "Any given sunday" aspect. I like the competition whether we win or lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojobo Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 It shouldn't go away completely, but it is kind of necessary in order to keep the league together. I think right now they share 40% of each ticket sold, but keep 100% of their luxury suite sales. Part of why the NFL is so fun to watch is that it is very competitive and it really doesn't necessarily have a lot of teams that will go a whole decade without even making the playoffs (although the lions are making it hard to make this argument now). Even if revenue sharing stopped, there would likely still be a salary cap and would limit what teams could spend on their player salary so its not like the Cowboys and Redskins could just take the top free agents year after year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Do you think Yankees fans or Red Sox fans feel like they cheated when they won their World Series titles?EDIT: Beside the, you know, steroids. No, but I think that it would be different in the case of the NFL because we would switch to it from the current system. Just curious because I don't know, when was the last time MLB had a salary cap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikie Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I think it would be the biggest mistake the NFL could ever make . The competitive nature of the NFL has made it more and more popular . The fans expectations rise and rise , hell they boo a winning team here in DC and while it may seem a great idea in principle that massive revenue streem will dwindle as TV finds something else to shine on and fans start finding other things to do than watch the Redskins blow out the Vikings for the nth time ... couldn't agree more... even as a diehard skins fan, if I was told the end of the salary cap and revenue sharing would mean 3 superbowls in the next 10 years, but at the expense of a ridiculously unbalanced league and our payroll tripling other teams, I'd literally find no pleasure in it at all... would probably lose interest in the league... I love the salary cap, I love the role of a front office, the draft, and I think it makes the NFL a uniquely competitively league... would hate to see that go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor4Life Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 It's a catch-22. I love watching the bad boy on the block getting his clock cleaned by a no-namer, such as when the Patriots beat the Rams in their first Super Bowl. Eliminating revenue sharing will make that impossible, and Goliath would always slaughter David. On the other hand, I know that revenue sharing and free agency is partly responsible for the Redskins franchise's fall from grace, and that by removing them we might actually be a respectable franchise again. It's obvious that no matter what, we will never learn what it takes to succeed in today's NFL as long as Snyder owns this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaimeDeCurry Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 In a word, no.It would get pretty boring pretty darn quick if teams in smaller markets had that taken away from them, and a certain few teams dominated proceedings because they could garner all the top players. You'd be severely limiting the chances of an Arizona like last year getting their taste, and in turn attendances, without which there is NO game, would doubtless suffer if teams outside of the lucky few had little hope of success. Hail. Here's some of the teams that have made it to the World Series in the past fifteen years or so: Tampa Bay Colorado Detroit Houston Florida Anaheim Toronto Minnesota It's not like the Yankees and Red Sox and Mets are the only teams getting to the World Series, although they understandably do have a higher rate of attendance, especially since the Yankees went on that crazy run. But look at what the Bills did in 4 straight, the Patriots won 3 of 4, the Cowboys and Steelers all won several Super Bowls within a short time span. It's not like we see the Lions or Rams having a great shot at the Big Show any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Let the weak sisters die off. There are some owners who don't care about winning, just making money. Mike Brown and Bill Bidwell come to mind. Let them try to make money without revenue sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Baseballs one thing, football's a completely different animal. You seriously think the league would still be open for the smaller market teams if the certain lucky few could fill out their rosters with all the top players? We'd end up with a monopoly of those certain teams dominating the Lombardi. And even though we'd be one of them, that's not how I want to watch this league go in the coming years. Pretty much the same way as English soccer has gone since the scrapping of teams getting a cut of the home gate in the eighties, through to the formation of the "greed is good league" in the early 90's. 4 big teams dominate, one through out side investment it's true, and that dominance grows with each passing year as they continue to rake in all the big money. That kind of predictability season in, season out, is not one I'd like to see in the NFL. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey17 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 The selfish answer would be yes. But I think it needs to remain in place for the sake of the league. Parity and the thought that your team can win any Sunday is what has made the NFL so popular. I mean imagine being a Kansas City Royals fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Baseballs one thing, football's a completely different animal.You seriously think the league would still be open for the smaller market teams if the certain lucky few could fill out their rosters with all the top players? We'd end up with a monopoly of those certain teams dominating the Lombardi. And even though we'd be one of them, that's not how I want to watch this league go in the coming years. Pretty much the same way as English soccer has gone since the scrapping of teams getting a cut of the home gate in the eighties, through to the formation of the "greed is good league" in the early 90's. 4 big teams dominate, one through out side investment it's true, and that dominance grows with each passing year as they continue to rake in all the big money. That kind of predictability season in, season out, is not one I'd like to see in the NFL. Hail. That is the NFL you had before 1993 and the Redskins were one of those predictable teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaimeDeCurry Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 Baseballs one thing, football's a completely different animal.You seriously think the league would still be open for the smaller market teams if the certain lucky few could fill out their rosters with all the top players? We'd end up with a monopoly of those certain teams dominating the Lombardi. And even though we'd be one of them, that's not how I want to watch this league go in the coming years. Pretty much the same way as English soccer has gone since the scrapping of teams getting a cut of the home gate in the eighties, through to the formation of the "greed is good league" in the early 90's. Hail. You act like the Lombardi hasn't already been dominated by just a few teams though, relatively speaking. Here's the Super Bowl winners: Steelers (6) Cowboys 49ers (5) Packers Giants Raiders Redskins (3) Colts Dolphins Broncos (2) Ravens Jets Bucs Chiefs Rams (1) The Steelers have won about 15% of all Super Bowls played, the NFC East has 25% of all Super Bowl wins, and that's even without the Eagles ever winning. It's not like there's actually a whole lot of parity as is. More than half of the NFL teams have never won one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robb01 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Think its fine the way it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Honestly, you can reduce the nfl from 32 teams to 24 teams and have better quality play and get rid of the weak teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt'n Obvious Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 No thanks. I like the parity of the NFL just the way it is. No need to make it feel more like baseball. (I despise the Yankees and Red Sox. I'm a Braves fan ) :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Clark Fan Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 To answer the question, I dont neccessarily want revenue sharing to go away, i just want Dan Snyder to go away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwack Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 As multiple people have stated no, because the parity is what makes the league great; and I wouldn't want to see the same 4 to 6 teams dominate every single season (even if the Skins were one of those teams) just because they have the most money to spend. The NFL is almost perfect, the big problem left is getting a rookie pay scale in place so there are no more hold outs because some brat who hasn't proven jack wants more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 You act like the Lombardi hasn't already been dominated by just a few teams though, relatively speaking. Here's the Super Bowl winners:Steelers (6) Cowboys 49ers (5) Packers Giants Raiders Redskins (3) Colts Dolphins Broncos (2) Ravens Jets Bucs Chiefs Rams (1) The Steelers have won about 15% of all Super Bowls played, the NFC East has 25% of all Super Bowl wins, and that's even without the Eagles ever winning. It's not like there's actually a whole lot of parity as is. More than half of the NFL teams have never won one. Your missing the point bro. What your suggesting would limit the majority of those 17 teams chances even further. Not only would the bigger market teams dominate the actual winning of the Lombardi, they'd dominate who played in it, and examples like the Cards last year and their ilk would become fewer and further between than they already are of having their day in the sun. Great from a selfish Redskin's point of view, but not so good Country wide for the continued development and interest in the sport as a whole. The NFL has things just about right the way things are, through revenue sharing and the cap, to the one and done seeded playoff's. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike21 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I think ending it would be a horrible thing for the NFL. But I still voted the other ways anyways since I am a Skins fan hah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braxford Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 To answer the question, I dont neccessarily want revenue sharing to go away, i just want Dan Snyder to go away! The Skins number one in revenue....hmmmm no wonder Snyder won't change how he operates. He can have a guy like Vinny as "GM" and whatever, still number one in revenue. Snyder will never go away as long as the Skins are number one in revenue, horrible business decision. Still one can dream.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preachtheWORD Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Anybody else surprised to see the Texans ranked so high in revenue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.