If the NFL were uncapped...?

**HotInHere** · 03-06-2013, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by Coastergenius

In the NFL, all TV revenue is split, all merchandise revenue is split (it is in the MLB too BTW, sorry Yankee fans), and nearly every team sells out their stadium (and such a small amount of money comes from ticket sales).

Yes!

Revenue sharing is as big or bigger as a factor in keeping the competitive balance.

Some numbers: Let's say the Ravens average ticket price is $100. Times 10 games and 70,000 fans, that works out to $70 million. The new TV contract is worth $3 billion a year, or almost $100 million per team. So that means the Ravens are making $170 million, and we can assume that other teams are probably between $140 million and $200 million a year in tickets and TV.

By contrast, the Yankees get $400 million in revenue every year FROM THE YES NETWORK ALONE. They make another $325 million in tickets sales. (Source: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/...es_334613.html) Meanwhile the Pittsburgh Pirates do not own a TV network, and make $35 million a year in ticket sales.

So in rough numbers, the richest NFL team makes about 45% more than the poorest team in tickets and TV revenue combined. In MLB, the richest team makes almost 2,000% -- twenty times -- more than the poorest.

So while it's nice that the NFL has legislated how much you are allowed to pay, the more effective regulator is that they have created a system where everyone has roughly the same about of income every year. The only way removing the salary cap would have a huge impact in the competitive balance would be if some Saudi prince bought a team and was willing to throw away a crapload of dough to buy himself a Lombardi.

And even then, the draft is effective in the NFL in leveling the playing field (unlike in MLB, where the richer teams also have more and better scouts, developmental facilities, and draft picks are much more miss than hit.) Careers are short in the NFL. Aside from a few positions, most notably QB, by the time a player becomes established as a very good player, they only have a few more years to play at that level.

**Mista T** · 03-06-2013, 06:50 PM

Terrible idea.

Parity is a major reason why the NFL has surpassed baseball & horse racing as the national past time. Removal of the cap would destroy parity.

Along with others above, I have pretty much abandoned baseball as an interest. One or two O's games and Bowie Baysox -- that's it.

**lowrider** · 03-06-2013, 08:17 PM

Ravens would = O's. Could you imagine going 15 years without a trip to the playoffs?

The notion that the yankees have proven that money can't buy a championship is bs. Yeah, it doesn't work every year but they do get to the playoffs every year, and have won more championships then any other franchise in baseball.

**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.

**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.

**AirFlacco** · 03-06-2013, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by Coastergenius

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?

Jerry JOnes would be the Steinbrenner of of a capless NFL with a $250M payroll. You can put Danny boy up there also along with SF and NY. It would favor the rich large markets like baseball.

MLB tried to have a CAP but Yankees always fought it. Then they actually tried it and the players went on strike and the season was cancelled. It was the first time the World Series was never played. That will never happen again.

A lot of us were concerned during the recent NFL strike that Jones and Danny would get their way. They sure wanted it but cooler heads prevailed with the current system.

NFLs Salary cap just went up to $123M for 2013 while the Yankees have over a $200M payroll. Thing is, O's almost beat them in playoffs last summer with just a fraction of that because Mullah Petey finally STFU and let his baseball men run things as Bisciotti has done since he's been here.

Still, money talks in baseball.

**Brien Jackson** · 03-06-2013, 11:45 PM

For the life of me I can't figure out how it is that people actually think that there's a strong correlation between payroll size and winning in baseball. I mean, haven't any of you ever met a damn Cubs fan? And if not, can you tell me your secret?

Seriously though, since you have to have six years of service time to qualify for free agency in baseball, the teams with the really high payrolls are generally either loading their team up with veterans in or heading into their decline years or drastically overpaying their own players because they have the money to do it/they overrate those guys. C.f.e. Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, hell even Mariano Rivera. On the flip side of things, good front offices generally don't have much of a problem loading their team up with young talent and winning with low budgets thanks to the cost control effects of the pre-free agency period (though the new cap on draft signing bonuses will probably put an end to that).

As far as football goes, lifting the cap would probably create a fair bit of chaos in terms of working out contracts, but it almost certainly wouldn't create any meaningful competitive balance changes. First and foremost, players are still going to get hurt/break down physically (especially non-QBs), and having a higher payroll isn't going to make you any less likely to get bit by the injury bug. Secondly, football's competitive balance really comes from the fact that they're drafting pro-ready players, many of whom can come in and make a big impact right away, which makes handing out huge sums of money to players old enough to be eligible for free agency a wildly inefficient strategy even if there isn't a cap in place.

I'd say the most notable change for a team like the Ravens is that Bisciotti would probably put up hefty one-year deals for players like Ed Reed and Todd Heap to be sure they stayed with the Ravens for their whole career.

**AirFlacco** · 03-06-2013, 11:54 PM

Look back to the NFLs pre-cap era of the 90s and see who won all the SBs - Dallas, SF, Skins, etc. The teams with the biggest spenders. Nasty had Bisciotti on his show shortly after he became the owner. Steve said his wife always thought he'd buy the O;s.
He said hell no. There is no incentive for a baseball owner to succeed because there is no cap, no pooling etc like in football where small market teams like Pissburgh and Bmore can win with smart organizations.

WE'RE 32 OF THE BIGGEST SOCIALISTS IN SPORTS. ART MODELL

ILMAO

**AirFlacco** · 03-07-2013, 12:01 AM

Speaking of baseball and the Yankees, there's a cool movie out on cable called MONEY BALL. It's all about that and Billy Bean who took the OAK As and almost beat the Yanks like the Os did last summer.

That year the Yanks had a payroll of $150M and As had a payroll of $39M and almost beat them. Cool baseball movie.

Also, speaking of the Yanks, here's how stupid New Yorkers are. The word Yankee comes from the Dutch word Yak which means slimey scum, hill billy, redneck. That's what the Dutch called the British when they were run out of NY. Then when the Americans acted up the Briitish Anglonized the word to Yankee and insulted the Americans with it.

New YOrkers didn't know what the word actually meant and ran with the ball and adopted it's name with Yankee Doddle Dandy and the New York Yankees. So next time you see a Yankee fan, mention it to him. He won' know what the hell you're talking about. LOL

**Brien Jackson** · 03-07-2013, 12:14 AM

Originally Posted by AirFlacco

Look back to the NFLs pre-cap era of the 90s and see who won all the SBs - Dallas, SF, Skins, etc. The teams with the biggest spenders.

Well, there was no free agency then either.

**AirFlacco** · 03-07-2013, 12:36 AM

Andre Rison of the Browns makes #4 on the list of worse free agent signings of the 90s.Worse still, was the cash-strapped Modell had to beg, borrow and steal every penny to sign him at $17M in 1995. Art thought so much of him he left him behind when he moved the Browns to Bmore-lol.

http://www.therichest.org/video/4-an...gent-signings/

This list drops Rison down a little but look who's 3rd worse of all time - our own AD Thomas who was one of Bellicheat's biggest mistakes. He cut AD the day after the 2010 DRaft-lol.

And our SB 35 hero Duan Starks makes the list several spots later. He was often injured in Arizona.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...history/page/3