bikie Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 No. You would lose some teams. Not good for the league. exactly, I don't think people understand how many teams would not be able to survive in their current markets... I heard a european group is gearing up to make a proposal to buy one of the struggling franchises and move them to london, which the commissioner has already stated he is in favor or (a team in the UK)... jacksonville and st. louis are on the chopping block... detroit, buffalo can't be far behind... just look at the blackout list this year and that should tell people what a lack of revenue sharing could mean... 8-10 teams this week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panel Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 If revenue sharing creates Parity, then why have 5 of the past 8 super bowls been won by the same 2 teams? Revenue sharing does not create parity. It does the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celts32 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 No...revenue sharing is what made the NFL great. And the Redskins problem is not money or the need to spend more of it. Their problem is the decision makers who are spending the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy 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. I actually like that idea. Keep revnue sharing but get rid of the cap. It still gives the small market team money to get competitive, but it doesn't hinder the teams that bring in more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikie Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I actually like that idea. Keep revnue sharing but get rid of the cap. It still gives the small market team money to get competitive, but it doesn't hinder the teams that bring in more money. I'm curious why you'd (or anyone in this thread who feels this way) want the cap to be removed... how do you think it would improve the league? what don't you like about the current NFL that you feel would be improved if the cap was no more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaimeDeCurry Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share Posted September 25, 2009 You only accounted for 39 Super Bowls. Damn. Who did I miss? I seriously thought I got them all in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaimeDeCurry Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share Posted September 25, 2009 exactly, I don't think people understand how many teams would not be able to survive in their current markets... I heard a european group is gearing up to make a proposal to buy one of the struggling franchises and move them to london, which the commissioner has already stated he is in favor or (a team in the UK)... jacksonville and st. louis are on the chopping block... detroit, buffalo can't be far behind... just look at the blackout list this year and that should tell people what a lack of revenue sharing could mean... 8-10 teams this week? Who's to blame for that though? The Redskins, Cowboys, Patriots, etc shouldn't be punished and forced to give their money to teams like the Browns, Jaguars, Bills, and other teams that can't make money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornToHail Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I vote for revenue sharing b/c I believe it helps foster an environment of parity. Of course, there is a level of parity that would exist w/o revenue sharing, but I think the NFL flourishes b/c of our current system - does anyone have stats on the level of viewership BEFORE 1993 to now? Look at the dilemma baseball faces every year for their World Series viewership - if the Yankees or the Red Sox aren't representing the AL, they make significantly less revenue which ultimately hurts the sport. Every year the ad space for the superbowl goes up - regardless of who's playing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins 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. Thank you! I'm wondering if people realize that the salary cap/revenue sharing era makes up a brief 15-20 year period in NFL history? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 exactly, I don't think people understand how many teams would not be able to survive in their current markets... I heard a european group is gearing up to make a proposal to buy one of the struggling franchises and move them to london, which the commissioner has already stated he is in favor or (a team in the UK)... jacksonville and st. louis are on the chopping block... detroit, buffalo can't be far behind... just look at the blackout list this year and that should tell people what a lack of revenue sharing could mean... 8-10 teams this week? You can't make this decision based on the fact that, just recently, the NFL is seeing blackouts and the US happens to be in a recession right now. Teams survived tough times in the past. I'm on the fence. I believe the NFL should keep it the way it is, but I don't mind going back to the good old days, selfishly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Look at the dilemma baseball faces every year for their World Series viewership - if the Yankees or the Red Sox aren't representing the AL, they make significantly less revenue which ultimately hurts the sport. Every year the ad space for the superbowl goes up - regardless of who's playing... Right...I think you're contradicting your point with this fact though. You're almost saying that parity would HURT baseball because people don't tune in to watch all teams in the WS. We've seen that people will tune in for ANY Super Bowl, so it really is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I'm curious why you'd (or anyone in this thread who feels this way) want the cap to be removed... how do you think it would improve the league? what don't you like about the current NFL that you feel would be improved if the cap was no more? Well, we have a salary cap in place now and there are still bad teams that have no chance. Lions, Browns, Raiders, Rams, etc. I think the salary cap now allows teams to have a few good seasons before the team gets blown up. I just think not having a salary cap would allow teams to stay together longer and bring back the great dynasties we used to have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikie Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 You can't make this decision based on the fact that, just recently, the NFL is seeing blackouts and the US happens to be in a recession right now. Teams survived tough times in the past. I'm on the fence. I believe the NFL should keep it the way it is, but I don't mind going back to the good old days, selfishly. as a skins fan, I understand the "selfishly" argument, I just can't believe if people are fans of the NFL and football, versus just fans of the skins, they would welcome a situation that could potentially eliminate some of the history, legacy, and parity of the league.... I think the NFL in its current state has never been stronger nor more interesting from start to finish... the era of the dynasties was top heavy and much too predictable during the regular season, for me... but to each his own, was just curious... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikie Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Well, we have a salary cap in place now and there are still bad teams that have no chance. Lions, Browns, Raiders, Rams, etc. I think the salary cap now allows teams to have a few good seasons before the team gets blown up. I just think not having a salary cap would allow teams to stay together longer and bring back the great dynasties we used to have. to me, there's a big difference between teams being bad because they can not afford to pay quality players versus teams being bad because they make horrible personnel decisions, as the teams you mentioned are guilty of... I guess for me, as I've gotten older, I've grown to appreciate and follow the front office aspect of the league and would hate to see it reduced to who has the biggest checkbook... but the reality is that a lack of salary cap would actually allow teams to retain more star players than the current structure, they would receive more franchise tags and the number of years required to become a free agent would increase, so the salary cap aspect may not affect the league like it would sound... the lack of revenue sharing, however, would appear to me to be quite consequential... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 as a skins fan, I understand the "selfishly" argument, I just can't believe if people are fans of the NFL and football, versus just fans of the skins, they would welcome a situation that could potentially eliminate some of the history, legacy, and parity of the league.... I think the NFL in its current state has never been stronger nor more interesting from start to finish... the era of the dynasties was top heavy and much too predictable during the regular season, for me... but to each his own, was just curious... Sure...which is why I'm on the fence. I think the NFL has some incentive to keep things like they are. But, how "fair" is it that some teams have to prop up some of their competitors? Money that flows from Washington to Detroit, for example, might ultimately pay for players who keep Washington out of the playoffs... It's not a bad system, it's just a very unnatural one in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 to me, there's a big difference between teams being bad because they can not afford to pay quality players versus teams being bad because they make horrible personnel decisions, as the teams you mentioned are guilty of... I guess for me, as I've gotten older, I've grown to appreciate and follow the front office aspect of the league and would hate to see it reduced to who has the biggest checkbook... but the reality is that a lack of salary cap would actually allow teams to retain more star players than the current structure, they would receive more franchise tags and the number of years required to become a free agent would increase, so the salary cap aspect may not affect the league like it would sound... the lack of revenue sharing, however, would appear to me to be quite consequential... I see what you mean. I guess part of me wants it gone because I feel like we'd win a Super Bowl without a salary cap. But I agree with you that the Front Office aspect is cool. I'd love to be the salary cap guy for a team, I think it would be fun. I don't like how baseball doesn't have a salary cap, but in a way its not a bad thing. It forces teams like the O's and Nats to build their franchise from the bottom up instead of just signing stars every offseason. Will they stay competitive for long amounts of time? Maybe, maybe not. But it makes it interesting. And like I said before, baseball has actually had more parity this decade than the NFL or NBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I see what you mean. I guess part of me wants it gone because I feel like we'd win a Super Bowl without a salary cap. But I agree with you that the Front Office aspect is cool. I'd love to be the salary cap guy for a team, I think it would be fun. I don't like how baseball doesn't have a salary cap, but in a way its not a bad thing. It forces teams like the O's and Nats to build their franchise from the bottom up instead of just signing stars every offseason. Will they stay competitive for long amounts of time? Maybe, maybe not. But it makes it interesting. And like I said before, baseball has actually had more parity this decade than the NFL or NBA. I think a case could be made that it would be more fair to remove revenue-sharing and keep some sort of salary cap in the NFL. Make everyone "play by the same rules" but reward teams who make money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornToHail Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Right...I think you're contradicting your point with this fact though. You're almost saying that parity would HURT baseball because people don't tune in to watch all teams in the WS. We've seen that people will tune in for ANY Super Bowl, so it really is irrelevant. Fair enough, TD - I guess it is a bit confusing. My belief is that the parity is what helps makes the Superbowl a must view. If there was parity in baseball, I believe more people WOULD tune in to the World Series much like football. I guess my argument is that revenue sharing fosters parity and parity helps the sport in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I think people are greatly exagerrating how much it would affect the competitive balance. Was listening to Mike and Mike this morning and they had some interesting stats about this exact topic. In the last 4 years 8 different teams have played in the world series. The Red Sox are the only team to win more the one in the last 9 years. In that same time span, 20 of the league's teams have been in the playoffs. When was the last time the Yankees, who outspend everyone by leaps and bounds (red sox included) played in or won the Series? I think this would be even more true in the NFL which is less star driven and more team oriented than MLB. Any team that drafts well and has a good QB will be successful. Even right now, how's the star power treatment working for the Skins? Don't the Pats, Steelers, Ravens and Eagles constantly pile up and play young draft picks and discard older veterans rather than pay them? How's that working for them? I really don't believe removing revenue sharing and/or the salary cap would change the competitive balance very much at all. It might force a few teams to shut down or move, but that's about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I think people are greatly exagerrating how much it would affect the competitive balance. Was listening to Mike and Mike this morning and they had some interesting stats about this exact topic. In the last 4 years 8 different teams have played in the world series. The Red Sox are the only team to win more the one in the last 9 years. In that same time span, 20 of the league's teams have been in the playoffs. When was the last time the Yankees, who outspend everyone by leaps and bounds (red sox included) played in or won the Series? That's what I'm saying. Baseball has more parity than people give them credit for. Like I said earlier, in the last 30 years only 9 different teams have won the NBA title. That's absurd! Yes in baseball you can usually count on the Red Sox, Yankees, and Dodgers in the playoffs, But look at the NFL. The Colts, Steelers, and Pats are usually in the playoffs too. Every league is going to have dominate teams with or without a salary cap. But is it fair that the money one team makes gets sent to another team because they don't make as much? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Fair enough, TD - I guess it is a bit confusing. My belief is that the parity is what helps makes the Superbowl a must view. If there was parity in baseball, I believe more people WOULD tune in to the World Series much like football. I guess my argument is that revenue sharing fosters parity and parity helps the sport in general. That makes sense. I see what you mean now. I do think that part of it is simply that football is more "watchable" to casual fans than baseball is. Maybe that's become the case due to parity, but even when I was little, I'd sit down and watch the Cardinals and Browns play way before I'd watch the Tigers and Royals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 This thread would be much more entertaining if MSF was still on the board. I know which side of the fence he'd be arguing. Personally, I think it is good for the league that a bunch of teams are competitive, and as baseball proves, lots of money isn't necessarily good for the teams and the league. The problem I see in baseball is too much focus on building a one-year-wonder to win it all. It is too much all-or-nothing right now, rather than building consistency over the long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I think people are greatly exagerrating how much it would affect the competitive balance. Was listening to Mike and Mike this morning and they had some interesting stats about this exact topic. In the last 4 years 8 different teams have played in the world series. The Red Sox are the only team to win more the one in the last 9 years. In that same time span, 20 of the league's teams have been in the playoffs. When was the last time the Yankees, who outspend everyone by leaps and bounds (red sox included) played in or won the Series? I think this would be even more true in the NFL which is less star driven and more team oriented than MLB. Any team that drafts well and has a good QB will be successful. Even right now, how's the star power treatment working for the Skins? Don't the Pats, Steelers, Ravens and Eagles constantly pile up and play young draft picks and discard older veterans rather than pay them? How's that working for them? I really don't believe removing revenue sharing and/or the salary cap would change the competitive balance very much at all. It might force a few teams to shut down or move, but that's about it. That's what I'm saying. Baseball has more parity than people give them credit for. Like I said earlier, in the last 30 years only 9 different teams have won the NBA title. That's absurd! Yes in baseball you can usually count on the Red Sox, Yankees, and Dodgers in the playoffs, But look at the NFL. The Colts, Steelers, and Pats are usually in the playoffs too. Every league is going to have dominate teams with or without a salary cap. But is it fair that the money one team makes gets sent to another team because they don't make as much? I don't think so. Both great posts and sum up how I feel. The only advantage I can see for a rich team is that you can undo your mistakes much easier than a poor team. It's an advantage for sure, but I don't see the Redskins and Cowboys automatically squaring off in the NFC Championship Game for 10 years straight or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikie Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Sure...which is why I'm on the fence. I think the NFL has some incentive to keep things like they are. But, how "fair" is it that some teams have to prop up some of their competitors? Money that flows from Washington to Detroit, for example, might ultimately pay for players who keep Washington out of the playoffs...It's not a bad system, it's just a very unnatural one in my opinion. oh, yeah, believe me, if I was snyder or jones, I'd be pulling my hair out having to share revenue, especially with teams like the bills who benefit the most from it, yet refuse to sell the naming rights to their stadium... but the bottomline is that the system works for the fan who appreciates the parity and competitiveness of the league... the ratings have never been better, the merchandise is still off the charts, the TV contracts are ridiculous, just be a shame to tamper with something that's so successful... be interesting to see how this plays out... and as far as "fair", to quote the show WEEDS, "fair? the only fair that exists is on a bus"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikie Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I think people are greatly exagerrating how much it would affect the competitive balance. it's a good point... I've heard some great football minds talk about this subject and argue that the team aspect in the NFL is too great to become as predictable as a lack of salary cap would hint it would be (and as our past FA acquisitions have proven)... personally while I think it wouldn't make the season terribly predictable, I think it would absolutely crush some of the smaller markets, possibly to the point of having to relocate to other areas... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.