it seems teams can't keep fan favorite players, and their fondumentals have eroded because they can keep players to build chemistry or learn the playbook in and out. Teams out there seem like their high school teams.
2007-04-02 11:12:53 · 17 answers · asked by Dodgerblue 5 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
The salary cap has not hurt football as bad as the free agency system in place now. Owners just can't keep players around if they think they can get more money somewhere else. Remember how Deion Sanders signed a 1 year deal with San Fran in 1994? He was one of the first rent-a-players. I'm not saying a player has to be bound for life, but if there was a better system for free agency, a cap wouldn't be necessary.
2007-04-03 02:39:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the salary cap has been a great success for the NFL. If players can't learn the playbook, that's their fault or their coaches' fault, not the salary cap's fault. The best thing about the salary cap is that it creates parity, making it possible for almost any bad team to turn into a winning team after a few smart moves in the draft or in free agency. I look at what a disaster baseball is (rich teams have a guaranteed playoff spot every year and poor teams might as well give up on having a winning season right now) and I'm very thankful for the salary cap.
I have a solution to the problem of top players changing teams all the time: keep the salary cap, but require teams pay transfer fees to negotiate with other teams' players, like the fee that the Red Sox paid for Matsuzaka or the fees that European soccer teams have to pay.
2007-04-03 17:39:46 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The cap is a great thing if you'd like to see what would happen if there was no cap look at baseball the top 5 teams in salary is about the same as the rest of the league combined. The cap also makes the NFL draft that much more exciting because the rookies may actually start that season rather than rot in the minors. Not to mention that the dynamic rosters is also a good thing building stories like oh snap McNair is comeing up against his old team.
2007-04-03 00:45:26 · answer #3 · answered by James G 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Without a salary cap, teams from smaller areas with smaller fan bases will be awful teams every year...Dallas was good for all of those years because they had the money to keep the good players around and never worry about how much they are being paid. I prefer the system we have now where any year, any team can win it all. It's about putting a team together with the right guys. Look at Green Bay. They run the kind of team where if you demand tons of money or have a bad attitude...you aren't playing there much longer and they are like $20million+ under the salary cap and not that bad of a team.
While it's true our favorite players are not assured to be there every year, a few can be (Brett Favre for example). Salary cap helps all teams compete with one another where no salary cap hurts the "less rich" teams.
2007-04-02 18:33:50 · answer #4 · answered by Carolina Kitten 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The cap is necessary.
Without it - cashed up Cowboys in the 90's would have dominated for so much longer. All that would happen today is a cashed up conglomerate would sign everything that moved.
For all it's faults, the cap helps teams like the Saints come from nowhere to play in late January. You have to look beyond the top line names and find the talent you can afford - ensembles work.
Besides, there is nothing to say that the big name stars can't settle for slightly less and stay in a stable environment where they can contribute to success.
I don't want to be one of THOSE GUYS, but anyone who can't be happy with $1million per year, should have a look at their family and college buddies and see how they are doing. Even if they only play for 5 years at $1million, it's more than I'll ever see.
2007-04-02 18:41:57 · answer #5 · answered by forrest7309 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not really. It is more that teams are STILL overpaying and also teams don't know how to BUILD A TEAM. Look at the Steelers. Under Bill Cowher(last 15 years) his regular season avg would be 10-6. Does that sound like they couldn't keep the team on track? A good team can still get the job done. Yeah you will have injuries and that will hurt. Perhaps the REAL problem though is OVER EXPANSION. They DILUTE the talent pool.
2007-04-02 18:52:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it makes it so that any team has a shot at the superbowl, and does not have a crazy monopoly of players, like the Yankees and the Red Socks.
like the chicago bears, having a 4-12 record, then the year after go to the playoffs, then the year after go to the superbowl. the chargers in 2004 were one of the worst teams, and now they are considered to be superbowl contenders.
but the inverse is true too. the raiders and bucs were in the superbowl in 2001 and now they are both at the bottom.
i guess the salary cap keeps the NFL more exciting
2007-04-02 18:33:29 · answer #7 · answered by Kev C 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's a good thing. It keeps players from monopolizing so much money and stops them from being so greedy. Without a salary cap, you'd have a problem like in baseball. The Yankees dominate the league because they have the most money. It takes the fun out of the game because they have an unfair advantage.
2007-04-02 18:18:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, the salary cap is a good thing. Look at baseball. It has no salary cap, and teams like the Yankees spend too much money, hurting the talent pool for other clubs.
2007-04-02 21:04:19 · answer #9 · answered by viperdk28 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the teams with good coaching and talent evaluation will always be good. They are better at building teams from the inside (i.e. New England, and Philly). But with the Salary Cap and Free agency I think helps bad get competitive quickly provided they are not in cap trouble.
2007-04-02 18:22:47 · answer #10 · answered by hobo2547 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋