I think the de-facto pay grades instituted after '99 are a pretty good substitute. And when you look at all their exceptions and taxes, the NBA works harder at structuring this stuff than anyone else.
The tops are higher and the bottoms are lower. The rosters are smaller and it's appeal is more enduring, entrenched and flexible with day games and radio although the NFL is explicitly more popular. That means similar money with significantly less guys deserving of a bigger share.
I agree with these two sentiments ... because even the greatest NFL teams only have realistically a 4-10 year window (max) to win a Super Bowl, the violent nature of the game with the inevitable breakdown of players' bodies, along with free agent aspect will keep teams from dominating for an extended period of time. From like 67-99, I do not think there was one NFL team that had a winning record or made the playoffs, 10 consecutive years in a row. Teams, like Dallas and San Francisco, always bottom out. People always pointed to San Francisco for being the reason for needing a salary cap. Though in reality, they sustained themselves through the draft, acquiring great low bargain talent, as well as signing great players who were in decline on a calculated bargain risk...if you research their transaction history through 80-99, they never broke the bank for anyone, hardly. De Bartolo actually understood that when it was on the horizon, which is why he sorted of cheated the system.
I'm glad justtxyank brought the issue of "revenue" up, because that is why players make as much money as they do in 2014. People often bemoan how athletes make too much money for a sport, while teachers and military personnel make next to nothing. Most people look at the issue with too much emotion, comparing to inconsequential situations. It's an issue of revenue...players only make as much money as revenue and overall business vitality allow in progress. If teams were worth only a couple of millions, it would be different, but most teams are worth near a billion dollars and have billions television revenue, mostly on the backs of ... players. The players, like other entertainers or performers are the product being sold, more or less. At most jobs, you are either providing a service or making a product...you personally are not being advertised and sold to people. In the NFL, I'm selling the teams, like the Green Bay Packers or Washington Redskins for people to come watch or individual players in the NBA, like Kobe and LeBron to come and watch.
I'm going to play devil's advocate and say salary caps should be removed for several reasons: 1. Salaries will only go as high as the market allows to begin with: Realistically speaking, we could abolish the salary cap, today and for the next decade ... I doubt that such a move would help any one team dominate the league as its structured right now, although we've omitted the salary cap. We always talk about teams who spend too much money. Rarely about teams who spend to little, we'll much under the threshold that makes at team wholly competitive. 2. Salary caps cannot abolish what we could characterize as "mediocre" level management. With or without a salary cap, a team is doomed to fail than succeed, if management finds itself to be an incompetent or lackadaisical group. I believe a team that rarely spends money (when it's possible to spend without drowning the team's expenses) is as bad, if not worse for a sports league than one that typically overspends ... Which is a problem that used to be pointed out with revenue sharing. Good example, the NBA Eastern Conference, alot of East coast teams are spending/have spent money to field competitive teams ... problem lies management skills and allocation of funds. It doesn't matter if a team has $200 million to spend vs. $75 million, if the money is poorly allocated it's not going to do a bit of good. Yet, how many league officials, executives, coaches and players going to admit the reason "teams" continually lose is "inept" management. 3. How effective is revenue sharing vs. non-revenue sharing; how effective is stringent revenue sharing vs. non-stringent revenue sharing? Example, I'm mega-spending owner, like George Steinbrenner or Jerry Jones, big market or not, the league mandates that I should share my money with smaller market teams, like Carl Pohlad, Twins (RIP) and Wayne Huzienga, Marlins ... it comes to surface they are not putting a great majority of that money into players and team resources to become a better competitor. Why should I have to share my money with other owners who aren't willing to spend. Moreover, why should I let my more talented players that I drafted and invested in for give or take four to ten seasons. Because of unjust salary cap, that does not allow me to use my own resources to keep a competitive team on the field, while in reality I'm not overspending considering that my team could be one of the more wealthier teams in the league (not necessarily biggest market). Why reward teams who are going to be bad today, while also being bad tomorrow? I can lose one of my top receivers to a more mediocre franchise, and it will not likely help them win more games, if such teams do not have other pieces to surround him. 4. NFL starters tend to lose their jobs, alot easier and quicker than those in the NBA, MLB, and NHL: The depth in talent of the league has always shown this...and its much harder to dominate in football to begin with especially in college and the pros. Before 2004, the last New England won Super Bowl (two consecutive titles), only five squads (Pittsburgh did it, twice, though, really six), won two consecutive Super Bowls. There's never been a 3 peat winner and the only team that has come the closest was the 1990 San Francisco 49ers, who I don't think extravagant spending team. 5. (Stemming from 2) Even if a team spends money does "not" guarantee championships or even extended dynasty-type runs: Again, the right circumstances must be in place for a team to achieve such dominance, even appearing in the post-season, every year. 6. No Salary cap in MLB, yet there is parity "arguably" greater than the NFL's: http://statsbylopez.wordpress.com/2013/12/13/exploring-consistency/ http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/12/once-again-baseball-has-greater-parity-than-the-nfl/ 7. The League of Extraordinary Quarterbacks: From 1988 - 1999, a first ballot hall-of-fame QB won the Super Bowl 10 out of 12 times. The lone exceptions Phil Sims/Jeff Hostetler and Mark Rypien. From 1999- present, there's only two quarterbacks who in that time span have no realistic shot at the Hall of Fame ... Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson. The other QBs: Kurt Warner, Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Peyton/Eli Manning, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, while Joe Flacco and Russell Wilson are too early to tell ... but both are easily top 10-12 QBs in the league right now. My biggest argument here, salary cap or not, your team almost has no shot without a stud or high-caliber QB. Most of teams who can reach the playoffs, annually and reach multiple Super Bowl. Throughout NFL history, most bad and mediocre teams are oftentimes a QB away from being an annual contender ... problem is everyone cannot have a good quarterback and never will. That's not a problem a salary cap can fix. 8. The League of Extraordinary Teams: San Francisco 49ers; Dallas Cowboys; Green Bay Packers; New England Patriots; Indianapolis Colts; and Baltimore Ravens Compare their overall records, since 1988 against any other six in the league...you'll see a pattern.
