RashanGary
05-20-2008, 06:34 PM
1st, I'd decrease revenue sharing to the point where a franchise acctually had to have some level of financial success to stay in the league. I think the wealthy owners are pissed off because gutter whore franchises like Minnesota and Arizona are out spending other peoples money like drunken sailors while doing nothing to support it or help the league. I'd still have revenue sharing (hell, significant revenue sharing) but it wouldn't be a free ticket. Under my CBA, you'd have to have the market for the most part to sustain a franchise or you should move ot another city.
2nd, I'd increase the cap to the point where the top 1/3 can spend more than the lowest 3rd but not grossly more. The money would still be spent, but instead of the Shitqueens out spending jones' money, Jones can spend more of his own. This helps the players because the money is still being spent and it helps the owners because the big markets make more money and the more they make the more sharing there is to be had. Sure the Cowboys, Redskins, Giants, Jets and company will have a 20% advantage over the bottom feeders and a 10% advantage over the middle teams, but it is capped so it can't go overboard. I think there should be some reward for having a more financially successfull team (but not to the point where the league isn't competitive) and there should be some consequence for not selling out your freaking NFL stadium 8 times a year. If you're that pathetic, move cities.
Ultimately, I think this grows the league by helping the max potential markets but keeps the league competitive by having a cap. It sounds great to let the fit survive, but going to far in that direction would make the league less competitive and I believe would eventually take away from everyones pocketbook. The cap is good, but not the straight cap where everyone spends the exact same. I think the bigger markets have more potential to grow so by financial advantage, they should be given some leeway to try to cultivate their markets. I also think there aer some shit teams (like the Vikes) that should get pressure to survive or get out of the game. If GB ever becomes a shit stain like them, we deserve the same fate.
2nd, I'd increase the cap to the point where the top 1/3 can spend more than the lowest 3rd but not grossly more. The money would still be spent, but instead of the Shitqueens out spending jones' money, Jones can spend more of his own. This helps the players because the money is still being spent and it helps the owners because the big markets make more money and the more they make the more sharing there is to be had. Sure the Cowboys, Redskins, Giants, Jets and company will have a 20% advantage over the bottom feeders and a 10% advantage over the middle teams, but it is capped so it can't go overboard. I think there should be some reward for having a more financially successfull team (but not to the point where the league isn't competitive) and there should be some consequence for not selling out your freaking NFL stadium 8 times a year. If you're that pathetic, move cities.
Ultimately, I think this grows the league by helping the max potential markets but keeps the league competitive by having a cap. It sounds great to let the fit survive, but going to far in that direction would make the league less competitive and I believe would eventually take away from everyones pocketbook. The cap is good, but not the straight cap where everyone spends the exact same. I think the bigger markets have more potential to grow so by financial advantage, they should be given some leeway to try to cultivate their markets. I also think there aer some shit teams (like the Vikes) that should get pressure to survive or get out of the game. If GB ever becomes a shit stain like them, we deserve the same fate.