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

[Hova57]

I think a fair trade of would be if a rookie salary cap is installed alot of teams let these big names go because they wouldn't be able to pay them and their rookies

[terrapinman]

Quote: Originally Posted by Hova57

I think a fair trade of would be if a rookie salary cap is installed alot of teams let these big names go because they wouldn't be able to pay them and their rookies

Yeah man I totally agree...


ps great quote in ur sig from a great song.."Ghetto Boys" - Sean Combs (back when the song was made), Biggie and Jay-Z

[KG]

Quote: Originally Posted by pistoldill

Why do people act like Minnesota and St. Louis are small market franchises? Minnesota would do just fine given how strong they are regionally (I live in Viking Country and it is just as strong as anything the Bears offer), and Minnesota is not somehow scratching the dirt in the poor house. But the Lions getting a bunch of money for the sake of competitive balance, only to watch ownership bumble and stumble about like idiots while heisting football fans...they can't even make a statement against ownership in not purchasing the tickets. This move hurts Jacksonville more than anything, and by rights it should. The people of Jacksonville don't want football because they can't be assed to go to football games. So they shouldn't be kept afloat just for the sake of it because they are blight on the *** of the NFL, kept in place by a system not based in fairness, but in wealth sharing communism.

Your Vikings allegiance has blinded you to the fact that the owner has flirted several times with relocation because he can't get a stadium built. St. Louis already lost the Cardinals.

This could be the biggest Skins win since '92.

[shnuskis]

Quote: Originally Posted by pistoldill

Why do people act like Minnesota and St. Louis are small market franchises? Minnesota would do just fine given how strong they are regionally (I live in Viking Country and it is just as strong as anything the Bears offer), and Minnesota is not somehow scratching the dirt in the poor house. But the Lions getting a bunch of money for the sake of competitive balance, only to watch ownership bumble and stumble about like idiots while heisting football fans...they can't even make a statement against ownership in not purchasing the tickets. This move hurts Jacksonville more than anything, and by rights it should. The people of Jacksonville don't want football because they can't be assed to go to football games. So they shouldn't be kept afloat just for the sake of it because they are blight on the *** of the NFL, kept in place by a system not based in fairness, but in wealth sharing communism.

Minnesota is actually one of the bigger markets but the Twins have played the "small market team" thing to the hilt so people start to believe it. In this thread, Minnesota is one of the 9 teams that take revenue sharing due to a horrible stadium deal where they get no revenue from luxury boxes and some wierd deals they have with concessions and stuff.

[shnuskis]

I think it is interesting. I have been defending the Yankees for years. They didn't make the system. They just play within it. But I am sure all of you have heard the complaints about the Yankees. It sounds like most here would be as tired as I am of people complaining about how unfair it is they can buy anyone they want.

If the system changes in the NFL, I will never complain about an owner buying free agents. But I do find the current NFL system more interesting from a fan perspective.

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by SPTO

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

Minneapolis is the #15 market in the United States and St. Louis is #12.

Just be honest; you're a fan of the smallest market team in the league. Stop hiding behind Green Bay and Minnesota.

[Pringles]

my personal opinion is this move is so that that can use it as leverage to get ride of the rookie contracts being outragious
to much money for unproven players that tend to not pan out
sets back franchises and also takes away from teams trading down or up if you are in one of the top spots. a rookie pay scale is one of the things they want in place for the next agreement.

[TheWatcher]

Quote: Originally Posted by shnuskis

I have never said or implied you could buy a winning team with free agents. You have made a lot of assumptions throughout this thread. When a large market team builds a winning team (and the best way to do this which I have acknowledged and agree with you and have never claimed otherwise is not through buying high priced free agents from other teams) they will be able to pay the players more money to keep them from going to other teams.

Just so you're aware, my "assumptions" are based on some of the things you've said which have certainly given the perception. No need to bold and capitalize things (with increasing size, lol) I'm not stupid! I think you just have to realize that the way you put things guides a perception.

For example, you mentioned the issue of teams just being able to keep all of their best players under an uncapped system... from that you said you weren't worried about them building super teams through free agency... but the flaw there is that keeping your players to maintain depth is actually a crucial part of the free agency process. The two cannot be separated.

So, you are in fact saying that you are concerned that super teams are going to be created. The extent of how super is something you've given a few variables, but your opinion is that these teams being able to stay together longer will have a negative effect on competitive balance.

There may be some truth to that, and we'll see eventually as the new process takes hold. But what I'm saying is that it's not going to be as dramatic as it's being made out to be, because even if you can keep all that talent that doesn't mean you're going to win a championship or go on a dynasty run because as I've mentioned many times now and it is a fact, that not only have the most talented teams or overall best teams not been dominating, they haven't been taking home all the titles either. We both agree on that.

Although it's a bit hard to make out because of how the sentence began, I believe you were trying to say that the big market teams will be winning 12 games on a regular creating another issue:

Quote: Originally Posted by shnuskis

O saying Jets, Giants, Dallas and Washington will win 12 games every year until the system changes.

I say this won't be an issue as long as they're not winning all the championships (and I don't believe they will). It's actually good for the NFL if the large market teams are successful.

Quote: Originally Posted by shnuskis

they will be able to pay the players more money to keep them from going to other teams. This keeps the winning team together longer which is what a dynasty is. A team that wins for a long time.

I disagree with that one very strongly.

I think the overwhelming consenus is that a dynasty in sports is defined by championships, not simply keeping winning teams together. I don't recall the Utah Jazz--a consistently winning team--having kept the core of their team intact for a long time being called a dynasty with no rings. Or the Buffalo Bills who lost 4 straight Super Bowls being called a dynasty. One could make the argument that these teams ruled their division or conference since there is definite truth to it but attaching the word "dynasty" to that is too hard to do without being tongue-in-cheek.

In football, a dynasty takes place when one team has won more championships during a period of time (usualy within a decade) than anyone else during the same period. The NFL itself has produced a lot of film and literature over the years that defines it that way and they've made it sort of a mission to make the public understand their stance on it. The current dynasty is in the hands of the Patriots (3 titles in the 00's). I think a dilemma will start when one team only wins twice during a decade, or if two teams win 3 or 4, but I suppose we'll all cross that bridge when/if we ever come to it.