Should the NFL remove the CAP system?

Hell no... it ensures parity, and has every team (even the ones in a small market) making a huge profit. Without a cap, you'd see teams like the Cowboys, Redskins, and Giants outspending everybody.

The only thing removing a cap would be good for is the players themselves... and their union has far too little power to ever get that enforced.

Why is this even a debate? Are people having an issue with having a cap in place?

 

Part of what makes the NFL great is that there is a level playing field as far as payroll. Success comes from managing your talent and contracts well, not because you spend a bunch of money. It's one of the reasons why teams that don't make the playoffs one year always end up there the next year, because the top teams can't consistently hoard the best players. It rewards teams that are run competently and punishes the ones that aren't and I much prefer that wins are a product of how an organization is run rather than how much money an owner has and is willing to spend.

Baseball is not exactly a shining model as a reason to not have a cap. I'd expect most people would prefer for MLB to adopt an NFL type cap than for the NFL to get rid of it completely.

 

I would say no. The cap needs to be in place to protect the owners from themselves. I think having no cap puts the large and small market teams on such different plateaus that in the long run, the smaller market teams could never compete...even with intelligent management.

I would like to see the NFL change their system a bit so that it would encourage trading. I always enjoy the amount of player movement that baseball and basketball offer during the off-season and near trade deadlines.

 

The NFL staked its position 50 years ago when owners agreed to equal revenue sharing of television revenues. Ticket sales revenue is split 60/40 (home/road) and mechandising is split equally among teams. The NFL's cap system is an extension of the same philosophy.

I'd say it's worked quite well for the league and they shouldn't change it. One of the great things about the NFL is it really doesn't matter what city a team is located in. That is a good thing.

Jerry Jones tried to shake things up a few years ago and (thankfully) he failed.

 

It probably will never happen...but I would love to see this. If there was ever a sport that needed this type of approach, it's MLB.

 

Think of the Chiefs and Steelers compared to the Royals and Pirates over the last however 20 years.

 

Not only should the NFL keep the cap system, MLB should adopt a cap. Salaries are out of control in baseball.

 

The NFL's system is great, but it's sad teams can no longer hang onto aging veterans and role players - the guys fans gravitate to. Back in the day you could name a handful of special teams staples and package guys that would stick around for years and years Not anymore. Players come and go. The emotional attachments towards players is dead.

 

Salaries are out of control in baseball because revenues are out of control in baseball.

People do not understand the market system of sports. Salaries rise with revenues. Baseball revenues are exploding and thus the players salaries have exploded. A reduction in baseball salaries would not lower ticket prices, it would only mean that the owners would keep more of their money.

Also, baseball actually has a really strong record for parity, even compared to the NFL. The reason teams in the NFL rise quickly is not because of a cap, it is because of the NFL draft. It is easy to get an influx of ready made talent on a yearly basis in the NFL, whereas in MLB it takes years before a draft pick is a bust or a failure. It is incredibly difficult to replenish your roster in MLB.

The only thing the lack of a cap does to baseball is give owners cover for their lack of competitiveness.

Edit: Also, the biggest impediment to a cap in baseball is that a cap naturally is built with a guaranteed "percent of revenue" going to the players. This creates a ceiling AND, more importantly, a FLOOR for teams in spending. The small markets in baseball are just as opposed to the floor as the large markets are to the ceiling. The floor would be somewhere in the $60-$85 million range. Can you imagine Jim Crane agreeing to spend $60 million last year thanks to a cap?

Honestly, a cap would blow baseball salaries up even further and with the guaranteed nature of salaries would seriously cripple a lot of small to middle market teams.

 

Also, the NFL salary cap is not why NFL markets are all profitable, revenue sharing has done that.

Baseball does not have as strong of a revenue sharing system.

Right now the NFL has screwed the players because the cap has not risen in recent years in a corresponding manner with revenues, and as such, the owners have pocketed obscene amounts of money. How they got the union to fall for this gradual increase is beyond me.

 

The players & owners are guaranteed a portion of the revenue. If player spending ends up less, the players get bonus checks.

 

Don't give me this crap about parity in baseball, and that money doesn't matter.

The Yankees have 21 consecutive winning seasons.

You don't have to have high revenues to win in baseball, but it sure as hell helps a lot.

What the Rays & A's have managed to do is great, but they are an exception and neither has won a WS.

Baseball needs a stronger luxury tax and revenue sharing of that tax.

 

The MLBPA might be the strongest union in the world. The NFLPA is a pretty weak union. Given how popular the sport is and the amount punishment they take its kind of sad how little they get in relation to the other sports.

 

I actually think the last decade has shown a slight regression from the days of teams just "buying" championships in baseball.

You do need to spend... but you also need homegrown players that have a chance to hit their primes with their parent teams.

I'd say the majority of free agents in baseball have less "good" years with their new team, than they did with their old team... thus, the old team gets a significant higher production value per price they're paying.

The Cardinals, Red Sox, and Tigers... while all have competitive payrolls... still developed several key players to their ultimate success.

The Yankees still spend more than ever... but their days of dominating the league are over. Why? Because the homegrown guys that helped build their dynasty (Jeter, Rivera, Pettite, Posada) are old/done, and the new ones didn't have as much success (Cano).

 

The NFL already cynically exploits its player the most of any sport - **** the cap. I really don't see super-teams forming that much due to the fleeting nature of success in the NFL where you're about a snap away from career ending injury at any moment.

 

NBA would be a lot better if they adopted an NFL-like hard cap and contract structure.

 

If you read both of my posts I already said they don't have strong enough revenue sharing in baseball.

With that said, teams like the Marlins and Royals and Pirates have been highly profitable bringing in enough revenue sharing to meet their payroll even if they never sold a ticket.

 

The Red Sox actually have the record for most free agents on a WS team (last I checked.) Both of their teams were heavily free agent laden, much more than the dynasty Yankee teams which as you pointed out were built largely on the success of Jeter, Rivera, Pettitte, Posada and Bernie Williams.

Baseball teams stagnate not because the Yankees are paying too much for players who rarely perform for them, but because the process of turning over your roster through the draft and replenishing your talent base is incredibly slow. College baseball is a totally different game than major league baseball, there are tons more players to comb through, etc.

In the NFL you are almost guaranteed to find 1 to 2 competent starters, if not stars, every year in the draft for your team that start right away. In baseball you are hoping that 1-2 players in a draft ends up making your roster within 4 years.

 

The MLBPA is opposed to both a cap and fully-fledged revenue sharing.