Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Anybody else surprised to see the Texans ranked so high in revenue? Yes and no. Yes because of their lack of sustained success, and thinking back how empty the Astrodome was at times when the Oilers played there; no given how important football is to folks in that state. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrJL 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 the people outside do. It's gotten to the point where every year the Yanks don't win is a victory for baseball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaimeDeCurry Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 Great from a selfish Redskin's point of view... Guess I'm just a selfish Redskins fan As a 'Skins fan, the idea of having the Dallas/Washington rivalry heat up and take on an identity like New York/Boston has become in baseball excites me. I would love to have those games be the best of the season every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaimeDeCurry Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 no, but the people outside do. It's gotten to the point where every year the Yanks don't win is a victory for baseball People would be saying the same thing about the Patriots if they had beaten the Giants in 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins 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. Do you feel like we cheated when we won in 1982, 1987, and 1991? It would be the same "playing field" as back then. Personally, I think the current setup is better for the NFL, but I wouldn't shed any tears if they went back to the way it was. They could try to govern it like baseball does with a luxury tax or something...who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outlaw Torn Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 No I think it would hurt the game overall why make the NFL like the MLB when its so much better. I do agree with rdskns2000 about weeding out the some of the owners that are just tryin to make a buck though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 No. You would lose some teams. Not good for the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Anybody else surprised to see the Texans ranked so high in revenue? I read some where or heard something that said Houston is now the 4th largest city in America behind NY, LA and Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Yes let it go away. I've never been a fan of socialism even in sports. Youngins don't seem to realize that the Redskins, Giants, Cowboys, Steelers and 49ers won the bulk of their Super Bowls prior to the Salary cap. It still comes down to smart drafting, coaching and players wanting to play for that team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavarisgone Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 So you guys like socialism? It's a total socialist system the NFL has in regards to revnue sharing. I like it, but wouldnt mind if it went away, share the revenue but don't have a salry cap. If TV revnue is shared and certain owners don't want to spend the money, or aren't creative enough to generate more local revenue that is there problem. If I don't make enough money to pay my bills do the other co-workers at my company chip in to pay them? No, I have to get another revenue stream or cut costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaimeDeCurry Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 So you guys like socialism? It's a total socialist system the NFL has in regards to revnue sharing. I like it, but wouldnt mind if it went away, share the revenue but don't have a salry cap. If TV revnue is shared and certain owners don't want to spend the money, or aren't creative enough to generate more local revenue that is there problem. If I don't make enough money to pay my bills do the other co-workers at my company chip in to pay them? No, I have to get another revenue stream or cut costs. Apparently, all these guys just hate America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta 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. I agree for this reason. Look, I get that some people like expansion teams and more competition, but I'm against propping up a team like the Jaguars when they can't even sell out home games during winning seasons. Make the fans make a choice: eliminate revenue sharing (or if you don't eliminate it, reduce it severely), and if you team has more than 1 game blacked out, then no more revenue for you. I get that Detriot has a long history, but if they can't afford to have a football team, they shouldn't have a football team. If Tampa Bay wants to fund a 53 man roster that only costs them $11 million, good luck to them, that's their choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Apparently, all these guys just hate America. Hopefully with a Cap free 2010, A GM willing to purge expensive contracts and dead weight aging players we will rebuild a new along the O line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acason5 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 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. I am a Kansas City Royals fan. It's a lot easier and less frustrating. The Redskins actually trick me into hoping for success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkfan63 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 With Synder and Cerrato making personnel decisions nothing would change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddpls Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 All teams have the same Cap space that they are allowed to spend on players. The skins are always at the top of that cap space and haven't been able to put a super bowl win in quite awhile. Other teams have not maxed out their cap space and have done far better. Revenue sharing has nothing to do with how a team is able to put the best players out on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIDETHEWALRUS Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I would do away with it absolutely. As long as a respectable salary cap is in play, we would not be faced with the same situation as MLB or English soccer. The Skins and pukes couldn't spend away with a cap in place and the danger of a few teams dominating wouldn't exist. As a Redskin fan, as a fan of a team that gives away millions and millions of dollars I have a huge problem with revenue sharing. When I come back to fed-ex and buy a ticket, I'm paying 20-30% to the Cardinals, to the Lions, to the Vikings, etc. Our costs go up as fans because we have to give money away to the less profitable teams. People complain about how the Danny tries to squeeze every last cent out of his fan base, but very few complain about the league taking a large percent of those cents. maybe he wouldn't have to squeeze us if he could keep his own profits and reinvest them wholeheartedly into our team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIDETHEWALRUS Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I read some where or heard something that said Houston is now the 4th largest city in America behind NY, LA and Chicago. I'm not sure if Houston is, but the Houston Metroplex (the surrounding suburbs) is absolutely gigantic. It takes three hours to drive from the eastern burbs to the western burbs. On top of that much of south Texas dislikes the Cowboys and have taken to the Texan franchise (there are actually a half dozen or so high school and middle school teams with the Redskins logo down there). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 No salary cap, no. Salary cap, I can't understand why they have it. The TV networks are paying roughly 5 Billion this season to air the NFL. That easily would cover every salary in the NFL, including coaches and front office people. Why do you need to split ticket revenue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 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. You only accounted for 39 Super Bowls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Problem is fans would say the new Superbowl Champs have an * next to their trophy. And they would be right. Lets say after ten years we win 5 more trophies, a Steeler fan could always argue that they still had the most legitimate championships (and always would). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 So you guys like socialism? It's a total socialist system the NFL has in regards to revnue sharing. I like it, but wouldnt mind if it went away, share the revenue but don't have a salry cap. If TV revnue is shared and certain owners don't want to spend the money, or aren't creative enough to generate more local revenue that is there problem. If I don't make enough money to pay my bills do the other co-workers at my company chip in to pay them? No, I have to get another revenue stream or cut costs. I think more and more people are becoming socialists, maybe without even realizing it. I don't want nor am I trying to start a political debate in this forum, but look at our last election and what has been going on nation wide ever since. The point I'm trying to make is that if people are willing or too blind to see their own freedoms taken away in a socialistic fashion, I doubt they are going to care or notice that a sporting league is/has adopted socialistic principles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Problem is fans would say the new Superbowl Champs have an * next to their trophy. And they would be right. Lets say after ten years we win 5 more trophies, a Steeler fan could always argue that they still had the most legitimate championships (and always would). Then that would make their first 4 non-legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Day Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 For me the answer is no, but I would like to see some of the cap rules change. For instance if you sign a player that contract should void of a cap hit if certain criteria are met. Some of these I would like to see are 1. The player passes 2. Certified career ending injuries 3. Player reaches certain age and the contract was signed (not altered) at least 4 years prior. Ex the player reaches 35 and he signed his contract at 31 and it hasn't been altered in any way, then if the player is cut the cap hit is eliminated. A lot of those rules where initiated so that you can't buy every high priced FA and make a run at a SuperBowl and then cut them. The above exceptions wouldn't interefere with that and they would help prevent a team from being handicapped by natural decline, tragedy, and one year rentals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 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: Baseball isn't as bad as people think. Baseball has had only 1 repeat World Series winner so far this decade. Football has had the Steelers and Patriots account for half the Super Bowls this decade. Basketball however is the worst. Only 9 different teams in the last 30 years have won the NBA Championship. So, it seems like baseball has just as much parity as the rest of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.