I actually support the NFLPA on this (NFL ending revenue sharing)

[J0nnD0ugh]

Quote: Originally Posted by J.R. Locke

I don't like the NFL. The best thing about it is NFL Films (amazing heritage). Something is brewing here to make the salary cap simpler..... Something is brewing to make the owners richer and the players....well we will see.

You're definitely a different breed of bird. "I don't like cars. But I like car shows."

[Cebby]

Revenue sharing is stupid. Small market teams should reflect the failure of their cities.

[wco81]

OK, so what do you do with the small market teams? Move them?

They can't all move to LA so where do they go, to other small markets like San Antonio or Charlotte? Nothing against those cities but the NBA has had to move their franchises around a lot and the NBA isn't exactly the picture of success that the NFL is.

So if you can't move them (and it's harder to move an NFL team than an NBA team because it's more expensive to build a 60,000 seat stadium than a 20,000 seat arena), what do you do, shut down 1/4 or 1/3 of the teams?

Of course, you do that, the networks probably would want their contract renegotiated or at the next TV contract negotiation, won't pay out as much since it's a smaller league.

[TheWatcher]

Quote: Originally Posted by shnuskis

I don't think a team will build a contender by stocking up on all the free agents at all. I don't think that is how you build a winning organization and are not worried about that. I think a team like the Patriots that is well run would be able to keep their talent for longer periods of time. They would have been able to pay Samuel, had kept Seymore this year, kept Willie McGinnist another year, and had kept Dion Branch. All at the same time stock piling more talent behind them. The Patriots have done a great job at building a dynasty under the salary cap, but are in a period of decline right now. Without a salary cap, there may never be a decline. That is what I am afraid of.

But you're only looking at it in terms of money, and not in terms of the many other things that have to happen for a team to win a championship. You have to draft the right players, then hope they turn out the way you thought they would because no development process guarantees success. Then you have to hope that those parts gel with the overall team, then you have to hope that all of it translates to wins because again even the most talented teams regularly fail in the NFL. Then on top of that you have to be able to play the free agency game and get lucky to land players that come in and perform, and it's not all money... it's timing, it's positioning, it's how free agents view your team and how they feel they'll fit there.

Even if you were able to keep your players for longer, that still doesn't mean you're going to win a championship. Back before mass free agency in say, the 1970's, teams stayed together for a long time and there were dynasties but it was competitive enough that other teams did get a shot and the quality of play was strong. I think having teams being able to stay together longer now certainly won't hurt the quality of play.

When Free agency was let loose, the initial thought was that the dynasty runs would be dead. Then 8 seasons later a team full of guys that nobody really wanted sprung up out of nowhere with a 6th rounder at QB, and the rest is history. And that's all while other teams were spending like crazy. Nobody would've spent that kind of money on the players the Patriots had prior to their run, yet they had something you can't buy and that was cohesiveness. A number of those guys would'nt have even been starters on other teams. They didn't spend the most money, they just made the best moves. This is always going to be the case regardless of what happens with the salary cap.

It's a broken record though... tell me you're aware of the fact that the team with the most talent does not always win Championships? Because it appears that you think this is the case, but it's far from it. Understanding of that critical point is the reason I say that there is really nothing to worry about.

Quote: Originally Posted by shnuskis

The Redskins are not a case study at all for an uncapped dynasty. They built the core of the team through free agency. That is not what I am afraid of. Its keeping all the talent you develop. That will be where the dynasties will come from.

We'll have to agree to disagree on what the Redskins have shown (although I'm not sure how the correlation can be dismissed). All that's going to happen is you'll have teams spending more than other teams and it'll be more public now... and the Redskins have indeed done that and haven't won, and not having a cap isn't going to change their situation or other teams that deal similarly... they will be doing the exact same things, spending more than everybody else and will likely still not be winning because the're fitting parts that don't gel and the organizations aren't well managed.

Quote: Originally Posted by shnuskis

I am not predicting doom and gloom, but it would change enough that it wouldn't be as interesting as it is right now.

I don't see how. The most talented teams have not been winning championships every year, I don't think that's going to change at all.

[SPTO]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

Revenue sharing is stupid. Small market teams should reflect the failure of their cities.

So then you want to see Green Bay (a team of great heritage) and some other small market teams either be contracted or moved? Moving all the smaller market teams will be hard as there's only 2 or 3 big markets in North America without an NFL team. (L.A. and Toronto off the top of my head)

[shnuskis]

Quote: Originally Posted by TheWatcher

Quote: But you're only looking at it in terms of money, and not in terms of the many other things that have to happen for a team to win a championship. You have to draft the right players, then hope they turn out the way you thought they would because no development process guarantees success. Then you have to hope that those parts gel with the overall team, then you have to hope that all of it translates to wins because again even the most talented teams regularly fail in the NFL. Then on top of that you have to be able to play the free agency game and get lucky to land players that come in and perform, and it's not all money... it's timing, it's positioning, it's how free agents view your team and how they feel they'll fit there. I am not only looking at money. I understand what it takes to build a winning team and atmosphere. What I am saying is it takes money to keep it together. I am breaking it down to money because that is what this thread is about. Quote: Even if you were able to keep your players for longer, that still doesn't mean you're going to win a championship. Back before mass free agency in say, the 1970's, teams stayed together for a long time and there were dynasties but it was competitive enough that other teams did get a shot and the quality of play was strong. I think having teams being able to stay together longer now certainly won't hurt the quality of play. Valid point. But remember, the amount of money these teams bring in now and pay their players makes it a whole different situation. Not to mention, without free agency back then, a small market team was still able to keep its talent longer. It wouldn't look the same now as it did then. Quote: When Free agency was let loose, the initial thought was that the dynasty runs would be dead. Then 8 seasons later a team full of guys that nobody really wanted sprung up out of nowhere with a 6th rounder at QB, and the rest is history. And that's all while other teams were spending like crazy. Nobody would've spent that kind of money on the players the Patriots had prior to their run, yet they had something you can't buy and that was cohesiveness. A number of those guys would'nt have even been starters on other teams. They didn't spend the most money, they just made the best moves. This is always going to be the case regardless of what happens with the salary cap. I love how the Patriots built their team. I love the kind of guys they brought in. They originally had a core group of guys with a strong work ethic, intellegent and personalities to work within a team environment. They may not have been the most athletic. That is why they wouldn't have started on other teams. But they would outwork the other guy. Those type of players also will be willing to take less money to play for a winning organization. But what happened to their spending? In 2000-02 they were 24th, 23rd, and 31st in payroll. Players are signed to multiyear deals so winning may not have an immediate impact, especially with the kind of players the Patriots started with. But what happened as they won? In '03 they went to 9th, 05 7th, and in '07 2nd. Like I said, it takes money to keep winning teams togather. Quote: It's a broken record though... tell me you're aware of the fact that the team with the most talent does not always win Championships? Because it appears that you think this is the case, but it's far from it. Understanding of that critical point is the reason I say that there is really nothing to worry about. I don't follow your point here. I will assume you are saying I think the team with the most talent wins. I don't think I have gone anywhere near this point so I don't know why you make this assumption. Quote: We'll have to agree to disagree on what the Redskins have shown (although I'm not sure how the correlation can be dismissed). All that's going to happen is you'll have teams spending more than other teams and it'll be more public now... and the Redskins have indeed done that and haven't won, and not having a cap isn't going to change their situation or other teams that deal similarly... they will be doing the exact same things, spending more than everybody else and will likely still not be winning because the're fitting parts that don't gel and the organizations aren't well managed. I don't know how I dismissed the correlation. I agreed they are a case study on how to not build a team in the current system. But not an uncapped system. They weren't in an uncapped system and therefore can't be a case study in that. But it is not how much you spend but how you spend. In the early 2000's('00-'02) when the Redskins were signing big name free agents and had the most talent such as Bruce Smith, Dion Sanders, Champ Bailey, LaVarr Arrington, Jesse Arnstead, Jeramiah Trotter, Dana Stubblefield, Darrell Green, Mark Carrier, Fred Smoot, Antonio Pierce, Dan Wilkinson, Andre Reed, Irving Fryar, and Stephen Davis, the Redskins ranked 19, 27, and 20 in payroll. They clearly weren't outspending the other teams. In fact, they were 18th or worse 5 times in the last 9 years. I am clearly not seeing how they are the case study that proves there won't by dynasties. This decade they have been 1rst twice though. '04 and '07. I don't think anyone has been expecting them to win with Patrick Ramsey and Cambell at QB. My main point here with the Redskins is looking at one team that we both agree is mismanaged and put the wrong pieces togather to prove there won't be dynasties in an uncapped system only proves a mismanaged team that puts the wrong pieces togather will not build a dynasty. If you are trying to say spending alone will not build a championship team, we could have agreed on that hours ago. I have never thought that. Quote: I don't see how. The most talented teams have not been winning championships every year, I don't think that's going to change at all.

Its about maintaining a competitive balance. The gap will widen between the haves and the have nots.

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by SPTO

So then you want to see Green Bay (a team of great heritage) and some other small market teams either be contracted or moved? Moving all the smaller market teams will be hard as there's only 2 or 3 big markets in North America without an NFL team. (L.A. and Toronto off the top of my head)

I highly doubt Green Bay needs revenue sharing to stay afloat.

[SPTO]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

I highly doubt Green Bay needs revenue sharing to stay afloat.

I just used Green Bay as an example. You can replace that with STL or Minnesota etc etc.