NFL 2011

[TwinkieGorilla]

Not just FA-frenzy but a complete meltdown of everything that's been barely keeping the NFL from becoming MLB.

Get ready for the future...

...where Jerry Jones welcomes you to the Death Dome and his cyber-drones will shoot lasers at unshielded peasants forced into the league by law since all others have given up.

DFL

Dystopian Football League

Get ready, fans. It's coming!

 

[Sander]

BLOOD BOWL!

In the end they'll just get a new CBA. Seems the players are using the legal process to just get more leverage in negotiations.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Did you see Goodell's letter though? I hope that's just hyperbolic scare-tactics to manipulate fans into a frenzy.

 

[Brother None]

I'm pretty sure it is.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Because seriously...if the NFL turns into the NBA or MLB we're in for a pretty boring fucking future where the Cowboys always win, etc, etc.

 

[Brother None]

Yes. The thing is, no one wants that. Not fans, not players, not owners. So who exactly does Goodell think is threatening with this future? The boogie-man? Even if we're thrown into short-term chaos, BOTH players and owners want to continue the parity era, and no matter how the negotiations end that will always be a part of it. This was never a point of contention.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Well, when you've got players suggesting the end of the draft and college kids being able to choose the team they want to go to...

...I'm not so sure I really know if what the players want is in ANYBODY's best interest. Not saying I'm buying the hype...but I've heard some pretty stupid shit.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

NFL players don't want Alex Rodriguez or Kobe Bryant money? Really?
Ever hear a NY Yankees player complain about their league not having a cap?
What's wrong with letting the market dictate the ceiling instead of an artificial cap that keeps salaries down?

Why would players want parity? It suppresses salaries. Watch the ridiculous Yankee/Red Sox bidding wars every off-season. Players make out like bandits and teams spend stupid money ($50Mil upfront just to sit down with Matsuzaka - and he sucks, how many years does it take Peyton to earn that much?).

Salary caps are just crutches to subsidize small market teams. Screw parity, it flattens out the bell curve and stifles excellence.
Why should cheap, small market douchebags like Mike Brown and Wayne Weaver drive the bus? Look at where their franchises are at. Jerry Jones wants to play ball, he's not subsiding off the TV contract money and looking for more ways to gouge the players, he's pursuing and exploiting every revenue stream he can. Dude charges for tickets just to stand outside his building...and people pay for it! It's the teams that spend at the cap floor that kill the product, not spenders like Jones.

NFL teams have the biggest rosters and the smallest payrolls compared to other pro leagues. Also the weakest union.

 

[Brother None]

...I'm not so sure I really know if what the players want is in ANYBODY's best interest

What they want is money, yes. If given total control to the players in one fell swoop, then Goodell might be right. It's not a realistic scenario though. There are too many smart people that understand the function of parity, and why the NFL is one of the most successful sports franchises in the world. Y'know. People not like Cimms here...

It suppresses salaries.

No it doesn't. The current revenue split is not inherent of parity, and it is the actual suppressant of salaries. That's actually why it, and not the parity-driven nature of the league, was the bone of contention in negotiations.

The current small market team situation isn't ideal, though, I agree there.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

It suppresses salaries.

No it doesn't. The current revenue split is not inherent of parity, and it is the actual suppressant of salaries. That's actually why it, and not the parity-driven nature of the league, was the bone of contention in negotiations.

In theory maybe, but I don't think it works that way in practice. The Yankees and Red Sox don't have to deal with allocating an artificially finite number of dollars across their roster. They, or more accurately, the market sets the price ceiling, not an artifical cap number that's meant to hold them specifically back. Revenue sharing isn't suppressing salaries in NYC, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Philly, D.C. etc. - it's the cap.

MLB luxury tax serves everyone best - the big market teams can spend as much as they want, and the small market teams get a kickback to compensate for the disparity. Which, more often than not, the small market guys pocket as profit, instead of reinvesting if they so chose. Often the small market teams that scout, develop and deploy players in a shrewd manner can compete with the deep pocketed teams that try to buy their way to the championship.

 

[Brother None]

Yes, revenue sharing done per team is different from revenue sharing over the entire league, which parity and the cap de facto mean. However, you don't create more money by shifting to revenue sharing per team. So yes, the top salaries would go up, but it wouldn't benefit players overall. You'd have to be a pretty shitty union to argue for that.

That MLB system sounds like shit. We already have small team owners abusing the system to pocket revenue sharing profits, we don't need more of it.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Yes, revenue sharing done per team is different from revenue sharing over the entire league

MLB does a combination I believe, soft cap w/a luxury tax on roster values that surpass it. Luxury tax is redistributed to others.

That MLB system sounds like shit.

I doubt Logan Mankins sees it that way. Wide open free-agency, salary arbitration, does MLB even have a drug policy? MLB contracts are interesting - right to refuse trades to certain cities etc. Very strong union. Good union? I don't know. I don't follow MLB, I'd rather watch paint dry.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

But honestly, Cimm...when it's the Sox and the Yankees every goddamn year (with a Philly game every now and again) who can be arsed to care other than the same brain-dead zombies who think Fox News represents reality?

Every time a smaller team like the Brewers obtain a high-performance player the two or three teams with the most money just buy him out the very SECOND his name breaks and the season's over. There's really no way for those smaller market teams to ever build a truly good roster and compete for fucks sake.

 

[Brother None]

Looks like we're in for a new league year bros. Whoddathunkit.

(pending the NFL seeking a stay from the 8th circuit)

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Looks like we're in for a new league year bros. Whoddathunkit.

Yeah, I don't know what grounds the owner's had for claiming they can't stay open, when...they were going to be open tomorrow for the draft anyway.

But honestly, Cimm...when it's the Sox and the Yankees every goddamn year (with a Philly game every now and again) who can be arsed to care other than the same brain-dead zombies who think Fox News represents reality?

Baseball fans who want to watch the two best teams in the world compete against each other, rather than two indistinguishably mediocre teams, that are the product of artificial roster constraints designed to prop up mid-western and southern mudholes? (Ironically, bastion of the feckless Foxnews, all the while receiving federal dollars from northern states and railing against 'socialism').

The highest rated baseball games are always NY/Boston. Nationwide. That's what baseball fans want, I guess.

Every time a smaller team like the Brewers obtain a high-performance player the two or three teams with the most money just buy him out the very SECOND his name breaks and the season's over. There's really no way for those smaller market teams to ever build a truly good roster and compete for fucks sake.

If small markets teams can't stay competitive they should move to a bigger market that can support the team better. L.A. Toronto.

Sports is supposed to be the ultimate meritocracy, so it seems an anathema to me to give the midgets of the league lifts in their shoes so they can hang with the big boys.

We are all being robbed of ever seeing football to the level that teams like the '85 Bears played. Think of the children.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

You're missing the point. Teams like Green Bay have a better run organization than most, but will never be able to afford competing against a money-driven campaign like Jerry Jones could afford if there's no limits to bargaining or rules as to where players end up. Because honestly, who the fuck wants to live in Green Bay for glamour?

You're basically saying, in so many words, that "Fuck yeah, I want Donald Trump as my Pre'ednt! He got 'dat cash to back 'dat ass up!" Do you really think Boston/NY has anything other to do with money? It's not about the way their coaching staffs work. It's not about their fucking strategy. It's all about the endless pockets they have. And I'm sorry, shirt-tucker....but that's fucking boring. That's not exciting. That's what humans with functioning grey matter call PREDICTABLE.

Also: Are you sure you're not slightly retarded? Not joking. The shirt thing mixed with your idiotic posting habits leave me wondering.

 

[Brother None]

Also: Are you sure you're not slightly retarded? Not joking. The shirt thing mixed with your idiotic posting habits leave me wondering.

Do keep it civil.

Your arguments do seem rather colored by a wish to just see major East Coast cities split championships between them, Cimms. Thanks, but no thanks. What have these teams accomplished except being lucky in being grounded in the richest market areas of the US? I can tell which teams are richest by Forbes' lists, I don't need to see that played out on the field. No thanks x3.

 

[Sander]

I don't like the MLB's model and much prefer the more parity-based NFL model. But the whole "Yankees and Sox win everything" seems pretty stupid considering the fact that the Giants, Phillies, Cardinals, White Sox, Marlins, Angels and Diamondbacks have all won the World Series in the past 10 years. The Sox and Yankees certainly have a leg up over the rest, but the rest of the league isn't without a shot. This isn't the Premier League or Primera Division we're talking about.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

You're missing the point. Teams like Green Bay have a better run organization than most, but will never be able to afford competing against a money-driven campaign like Jerry Jones could afford if there's no limits to bargaining or rules as to where players end up. Because honestly, who the fuck wants to live in Green Bay for glamour?

Yeah, I'm not talking about how the team is run, I'm talking about accessibility to a large, affluent fanbase that can better supply a team with the funds it needs to put the best experience possible out - team, stadium etc. Especially if that's what's holding them back from competing for free agents.
I think lowering the bar is the wrong way to do it. Especially in a hyper-competitive meritocracy like pro sports. It's counter-intuitive. Flattens the bell curve, stifles excellence. And holds FA salaries down.

You're basically saying, in so many words, that "Fuck yeah, I want Donald Trump as my Pre'ednt! He got 'dat cash to back 'dat ass up!"

Far from it. Presidents don't pay for their cabinet out of their own pockets, so their personal wealth is irrelevant once elected.

Do you really think Boston/NY has anything other to do with money?

No, where did I say otherwise?
What better reason is there though? I thought the whole point was to have a viable, healthy, robust league with broad appeal. That purpose would be better served with franchises in LA and Toronto than Buffalo and JAX.

Your arguments do seem rather colored by a wish to just see major East Coast cities split championships between them, Cimms.

I want the strongest, most competitive teams that money can buy as provided for by the host city. If a team is being held back because of a small funding base, they should look for a new city that will support them.

Thanks, but no thanks. What have these teams accomplished except being lucky in being grounded in the richest market areas of the US?

You just gave the only good reason. Their money affords them the ability to put a better product on the field. Money runs the NFL. It dictates just about everything.

What about the other side of the coin?
Is Kansas City anymore deserving of a title than Chicago?
Small market teams suddenly have more inherent soul to them? They work harder/smarter?

I can tell which teams are richest by Forbes' lists, I don't need to see that played out on the field. No thanks x3.

See, this is a quaint narrative, it makes us feel good to bash the 'fat cats', but not always representative of reality.

Tampa Bay Rays have the second lowest payroll in MLB @ $41M.
Yankees and Red Sox are #1 and #2 at $202M and $161M. Quadruple the payroll.

Which of those three teams has won the AL East 2 of last 3 years?
The Rays. A team with 1/4 the payroll dominating the two Evil Empires.

Paying someone big money doesn't guarantee commensurate production. Big market teams can't buy guaranteed production and small market teams can excel at scouting/drafting/development.

A NY fan also pays higher ticket prices than other teams. Jacksonville has the lowest ticket prices yet all home games are blacked out due to lack of sales.
This system (as well intentioned as it might've been) is not working as intended.

 

[Sander]

A NY fan also pays higher ticket prices than other teams. Jacksonville has the lowest ticket prices yet all home games are blacked out due to lack of sales.
This system (as well intentioned as it might've been) is not working as intended.

No one's saying it's perfect. Besides, the fact that there's a fanbase in Jacksonville and not in LA happened because LA demonstrated over and over and over again that it cannot sustain an NFL team no matter how rich the area is. They proved it with the Rams and with the Raiders. Yet still the NFL is trying to get a team back there, so I'm not sure what you're actually complaining about.

Anyway, in the MLB you get the Pittsburgh Pirates purposefully keeping down their payroll so they can make as much profit. In the same market in the NFL, the most successful franchise in history resides. I'd say it's working pretty damn well.

Also, fuck excellence. I don't want to see a team dominate year in year out because they have the most money. I want competitive games every week. And that happens when money is spread around the league more or less equally. Or, failing that, if teams are capped in how much they can spend so that one team may be vastly more profitable but can't re-invest that in the team on the field. You're not going to see the 'best teams that money can buy' battling week in week out.

Do you have any clue how boring a lot of top-flight soccer games are? There are about 6 teams that can compete consistently, the rest is just cannon fodder.

I want the strongest, most competitive teams that money can buy as provided for by the host city. If a team is being held back because of a small funding base, they should look for a new city that will support them.

Oh wow what a novel idea, I'm sure no one thought of the idea "Hey just find another city like New York somewhere if your market isn't that size". Genius, Cimms, truly.

Paying someone big money doesn't guarantee commensurate production. Big market teams can't buy guaranteed production and small market teams can excel at scouting/drafting/development.

Research has pretty consistently shown that money buys wins in the MLB. There's always luck involved and smaller-market teams can win in the short term with good scouting, but in the long run they'll always lose out.