Alright....I have to write out a speech in class and I have to pick a topic that has at least three controversial sides both for and against the salary cap. Now I don't just need issues for and against but I have to back it up with actual articles. Your help would be appreciated and I just couldn't think about any other place to ask for help but here!!!
I think the issue itself is fairly well-defined in certain respects. Each league has its own Salary cap or some sort of rules (or absence of . . . see MLB), and they are all different. Whenever I've heard someone give a HS speech on it, I never have heard them talk about the ACTUAL salary caps in place by the leagues, but rather try to push the idea of some sort of legislation that limits pro Athlete salaries to some amount, then that is called a salary cap. I've seen this done a number of times (I coach HS speech and debate, and I've judged some Oratory rounds where people have spoken on this), and it's always done in a really bad fashion, with a bunch of grumbling about how teachers don't get paid as well as Athletes, and blah blah blah. IMO, that's always been a badly researched, and badly articulated argument that appeals to some people on a principle side ("Athletes don't deserve to make this much money"), but always falters when it comes to actual reasoning about the issue. What will you be speaking about? The league salary-caps, or some sort of government limitations?
<a HREF="http://www.nbpa.com/cba/cba.html">NBA Players Association</a> <a HREF="http://www3.realgm.com/src_feature_articles.php">RealGM Articles</a> <a HREF="http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm">Larry Coon</a>
I'll just be talking about the league salary caps and the issues for and against it coming from different perspectives of each side. So far I was thinking of using "Competitive Balance" as one issue saying how with the cap it levels the playing field, and without it, large market teams can field all star rosters. The second issue I'm using is focused around trading...with the cap it makes trading between teams easier, and without it there isn't much trade because it is so one sided and teams have to let talent go because they can't afford it. Now I'm just trying find a third main topic to talk about and be able to use both sides to defend it. This is just an informative speech, not persuasive, so I just need to get the information out and have articles to back it up.
Not really. You have to do all of that salary matching stuff and it really limits the number of options. Tading is more wide open in MLB because you can trade high salary players for prospects without worrying about cap room.
There's a draft of new Larry Coon FAQ that he's sending around for comments. The very first question is quite good for your needs, imo. <blockquote><hr>1. What is a salary cap? Why have one? A salary cap is a limit on the amount teams can spend on player contracts, which helps to maintain competitive balance in the league. Without a salary cap, teams with deeper pockets can simply outspend the remaining teams for the better free agents. The basic idea is that a team can only sign a free agent if the total payroll for the team will not exceed the salary cap. So a team with deep pockets is playing on a level playing field with every other team. The evidence bears this out: For the 01-02 NBA season, <b>the correlation between team payroll and regular season wins was about 0.13. In other words, there as nearly no correlation between salary and wins. By comparison, MLB (with no salary cap) had a much stronger correlation of 0.43 for its 2002 season.</b><hr></blockquote> I'm referring to the bold part.
