Jeff-Pash-reacts-to-DeMaurice-Smiths-criticism-of-NFLs-last-offer

[RashanGary]

This.

This is what you should not be looking at. It's nothing like baseball.

[Pugger]

The NFL has grown in large part because they have a good product that people love. The current system is part of it, but I'd like a league where a couple teams spend a little more money and everyone hates them.

The way those teams spend, they'd screw it up with a few more dollars anyway. Ted could beat Jerry Jones with 20% tied behind his back and it would feel that much sweeter.

I see your point too. It might be better the way it is. It might be better with a small financial tilt toward the teams with the large fan bases. Hard to say until it's done. My vision says the new way would be better. Yours says otherwise. I'll stand by my hunch, but I could be wrong too.

I know skinbasket doesn't understand what I'm saying, but I hope you can see it's a small difference, nothing like baseball. Just a little more rope for the idiot cowboys (and teams like them), that's it. The operative words are small(tile) and little(more rope). Don't mistake those for, "just like baseball"

Baseball is horrible, but that doesn't mean there aren't small things they have right, or at least in the right direction. Things aren't either all right or all wrong.

Baseball is horrible because of a lack of parity. I can't understand any Packer fan that would be open to a system like MLB. The ONLY reason why the Packers have been so successful is because of the cap and revenue sharing.

[RashanGary]

JH, don't you think that allowing some teams to spend more than others, even if you don't consider the difference large, to be a slippery slope? Why even open pandora's box?

Maybe it is. I'm saying keep it small and make the tax large. It's a way to get the big owners to open up their pocket books, an incentive. It would suck if it ever got anything like baseball. I agree to that. I won't even watch the Brewers because they can't truly compete.

[gbgary]

a soft cap would be a bad idea. the hard cap, and revenue sharing, is what's made the nfl the greatness that it is.

[RashanGary]

Baseball is horrible because of a lack of parity. I can't understand any Packer fan that would be open to a system like MLB. The ONLY reason why the Packers have been so successful is because of the cap and revenue sharing.

That's why what I proposed was nothing liek baseball. Compare it to basketball if you want a comparison, but even then, a 5 man game and guaranteed contracts make that very different too. Block out the baseball thing. Think of Jerry Jones getting teh chance to buy one more player at the expense of millions and millions of dollars being given to the other teams. One guy won't help Jones. We'll still destroy them as long as we have Ted.

[RashanGary]

a soft cap would be a bad idea. the hard cap, and revenue sharing, is what's made the nfl the greatness that it is.

I'd disagree with that. It's a part of the success, but football would be as great or greater if Jones and Snyder had one more guy on their teams. If that's what it takes for them to share their revenue, it's a good thing. I still think they'd blow it.

[RashanGary]

Hockey has had a hard cap and they haven't been a dominant league. That's because pepole like the sport of football better. Let's not call football a success because they have the one and only successful financial model. Football was created a long time ago and has grown into America's favorite sport. The momentum was already there in teh 60's 70's and 80's before they created the current business model. Football is something people like to watch and play. It's a great sport. I don't think it's smart to assume it's perfect. Nascar keeps changing and they keep growing. Change isn't always bad.

[Patler]

Maybe it is. I'm saying keep it small and make the tax large. It's a way to get the big owners to open up their pocket books, an incentive. It would suck if it ever got anything like baseball. I agree to that. I won't even watch the Brewers because they can't truly compete.

The problem is, once you start down a road like that there generally is no turning back, and you go further and further until you get to exactly where you don't want to be. Once you individualize the differences, taking money directly from one team and giving money directly to another you establish a caste system, with the lower ones beholding to the upper ones for their continued existence. The upper ones become even more powerful and get their way even more, so the small difference will be increased with successive changes and the "tax" will become smaller. You will get closer and closer to baseball.

While there are differences now, and some subsidies of the poorer by the richer, the structure tends to equalize the influence of the haves and have nots. The haves are not as capable of bullying through their wishes as they will be when the have nots are beholding and subservient to them.

Nothing good will come from making the NFL more about some owners than about other owners by letting the richer teams use their money to control the poorer teams.

[Freak Out]

The $$$ has changed dramatically since those decades and for one reason only.

[SkinBasket]

Maybe it is. I'm saying keep it small and make the tax large.

Which would relegate your system to insignificance.

[Lurker64]

I think what you're missing JH is that the other major sports want to have a system more like the NFL. Hockey locked their players out for an entire season in order to get a more NFL-like system. Baseball wanted to get a more NFL-like system, which lead to the players strike and the cancellation of a World Series. Basketball is about to lock their players out in order to get a more NFL-like system.

Why would the NFL want to emulate these other, less successful sports, that wish their economic model were more like the NFL's?

[Guiness]

Thanks for seeing hwo it could make sense. I actually think it would make teh league stronger (more money.)

I didn't say it made sense. I said I can see how it would happen

I'm with most of the others here thinking it's a horrible idea, and as Patler pointed out, the thin edge of the wedge.

I am Canadian. There is very little football in my blood, it runs cold for hockey. The parity of the football is what attracted me. I was heartily disillusioned to watch my favorite NHL team rip a championship winning squad to shreds, and sell the pieces off to the highest bidder. Toronto and New York had coaching and scouting budgets that would cover the entire player payroll of the have-nots. It just wasn't fun to watch (well, except that Toronto never did win the Stanley Cup).

Sometimes when I look at revenue sharing and the cap, I laugh to think how Un-American it is. It's counter to capitalistic thought, probably closer to pure Marxism than anything else I've seen!

[Cheesehead Craig]

Unless Joe opens up his financials, we're gonna decertify PackerRats.

Then the site will become like the JSO boards which we all want anyways.

[swede]

Jets traded #17, #52, and random players to Cleveland to move up to #5 to get Mark Sanchez in 1999.

That is a lot to give up for a thirteen-year-old.


(Edit...Smidge beat me to the punch.)

[Lurker64]

That is a lot to give up for a thirteen-year-old.


(Edit...Smidge beat me to the punch.)

Should have just written "back in '9"... the last digit is the only one that matters!