If the NFL were uncapped...?

**Coastergenius** · 03-05-2013, 11:04 AM

Just a hypothetical to throw out there. Sorry if this topic has been brought up before. But, if the NFL were like the MLB, and owners were able to spend money however they pleased, within a certain set of guidelines, and with luxary taxes of course, would we make out better or worse than with the strict salary cap or salary floor?

I'd like to say that we would do better, we have an aggressive owner who is willing to spend whatever it takes, we've always spent up to our cap, and we're in a division with cheapskates (the Steelers spend up to the cap, but the owners are known for not wanting to overspend if given the chance). Obviously, the Redskins and Cowboys would be like the Red Sox and Yankees, but they're in a difference conference entirely.

I know that this would not be good for the integrity of the game. But it's the off-season, I need to pass the time somehow. Thoughts?

**GreatWhiteNorthRaven** · 03-05-2013, 11:07 AM

It'd be a shitshow and I'd hate it as much as I hate the MLB

**Ravens44** · 03-05-2013, 11:15 AM

Only a few teams would be really great and the others would be perrenial doormats.
The teams with the most money buy all the great players.
That would suck.
If the CAP ever goes, so will I.
Try buying season tickets to that crap.

**Captain Silver** · 03-05-2013, 11:19 AM

The owners realize this is what makes their game great and why the NBA and NHL have caps too.

Baseball? It's a joke.

**mfdoom42** · 03-06-2013, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by Captain Silver

The owners realize this is what makes their game great and why the NBA and NHL have caps too.

Baseball? It's a joke.

Don't give the NBA so much credit. Their soft-cap/luxury-tax/max-contract setup ensures only a handful of teams will compete in any 5-year stretch. You need 2-3 superstars and 2-3 more fringe stars to have any shot.

**GOTA** · 03-05-2013, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by runrayrun27

It'd be a shitshow and I'd hate it as much as I hate the MLB

:word

I completely gave up on baseball years ago. I was an Astros fan for decades. Once my last attachment to the team retired I lost interest. Looking how disastrous that team has been since then I haven't missed anything.

The NFL will always get my sports dollars above anything else.

**BcRaven** · 03-05-2013, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by GOTA

:word

I completely gave up on baseball years ago. I was an Astros fan for decades. Once my last attachment to the team retired I lost interest. Looking how disastrous that team has been since then I haven't missed anything.

The NFL will always get my sports dollars above anything else.

When I was a kid, baseball was my great passion. Didn't hardly give football a thought. Now it's just the opposite. My sports $$$ go to Ravens related stuff. BTW, your Astros will be playing in the AL starting this year, if anyone really cares... Bc

**bt12483** · 03-05-2013, 11:36 AM

I've always treated the NFL as having a hard cap.

But the more you see these restructures and prorated bonuses, it is really a soft cap.

This is the current "cash over cap" issue.

The teams are spending cash over the cap. So while the cap is sort of limiting things, it still gets exceeded. Flacco just got his $29M payment cash. Yet on cap it is $6.8M. Teams want cash over cap.

Owners want cash=cap.

Perhaps in the next CBA.

**walkingpneumonia** · 03-05-2013, 11:54 AM

I would like to see different treatment for "drafted" players under the cap then free agents. The problem that I see is that teams that draft well are punished during free agency. This year is a good example. If Kruger had a discounted value against the cap if he stayed with the Ravens then he would be more affordable. As it stands most likely next season he will play elsewhere. It seems wrong that teams that spot talent better than other teams should not get some sort of advantage for running a better organization. I don't know if this would have any adverse consequences but it seems like a workable way to make teams a bit more stable over time in terms of personnel which will lead to a better community-team interaction as well as more of like the "Orioles Way" experience some of us grew up with when the team was a first class organization in baseball.

**mmi16** · 03-05-2013, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by bt12483

I've always treated the NFL as having a hard cap.

But the more you see these restructures and prorated bonuses, it is really a soft cap.

This is the current "cash over cap" issue.

The teams are spending cash over the cap. So while the cap is sort of limiting things, it still gets exceeded. Flacco just got his $29M payment cash. Yet on cap it is $6.8M. Teams want cash over cap.

Owners want cash=cap.

Perhaps in the next CBA.

Salary Cap and the rules that implement it, is football for nerds (lawyers, accountants, agents - number manipulators). So long as the contracts and their value is not guaranteed at signing, the value of long term contracts is barely worth the paper they are printed on. They are akin to a actor signing a contract for a movie and getting guaranteed a percentage of the 'net profits' of the movie and the producers and investors of the movie knowing they will NEVER let the movie have 'net profits' as their charges will suck down 110% of the gross profits.

NFL contracts are a shell game.

**Haloti92** · 03-06-2013, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by bt12483

I've always treated the NFL as having a hard cap.

But the more you see these restructures and prorated bonuses, it is really a soft cap.

This is the current "cash over cap" issue.

The teams are spending cash over the cap. So while the cap is sort of limiting things, it still gets exceeded. Flacco just got his $29M payment cash. Yet on cap it is $6.8M. Teams want cash over cap.

Owners want cash=cap.

Perhaps in the next CBA.

Not sure what you mean by "teams want cash over cap" but "owners want cash=cap," but I think the flexibility in terms of being able to shuffle some cap space between years (with prorated bonuses) makes the game better. I also think the owners and teams and players, and everyone would prefer it to a hard cap.

A hard cap means lean years and fat years, without any way of evening them out. Obviously there would be way less chance to get in trouble (with poor management decisions) with a hard cap (no prorated compensation), but that is part of the game, finding skillful GMs and capologists that give your team an advantage.

**mmi16** · 03-23-2013, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by bt12483

I've always treated the NFL as having a hard cap.

But the more you see these restructures and prorated bonuses, it is really a soft cap.

This is the current "cash over cap" issue.

The teams are spending cash over the cap. So while the cap is sort of limiting things, it still gets exceeded. Flacco just got his $29M payment cash. Yet on cap it is $6.8M. Teams want cash over cap.

Owners want cash=cap.

Perhaps in the next CBA.

The Cap as the NFL has implemented it is the Geeks revenge on the Jocks. The 'long term' contracts and bonus 'pro rated' over the full term of the contract and all the 'Cap BS' including 'restructuring' of existing contracts - is undadultrated SHIT! Bull, Cow, Horse, Eliphant - it don't matter - it is SHIT.

I'd rather see 1 year contracts - guaranteed. What have you done - lately!