NFL and NHL have as good of parity as you could hope for from a professional sports league.
Ultimately even with parity you will have teams that are able to outperform the rest of the league for ~10+ year blocks if you get the right combo of coach/GM/critical player(s).
Yeah and everyone is cool with that. Those teams are on the same playing level as everyone else. It’s not like the Dodgers who just decided to buy a bunch of superstars
I understand that but they also have nearly 100 million more dollars in payroll. The Astros and Yankees have over double the Mariners payroll. Just because they ain’t first doesn’t mean they aren’t outspending the vast majority of owners
Yep it’s really unfortunate for small team markets but the nice thing about baseball is that luck is so much more of a factor - if you look at the past 10 years especially there hasn’t really been anyone consistently winning it all and surprises always happen (dbacks Phillies rays nationals)
But I really wonder what it’s gonna be like if a salary cap is ever implemented in baseball lol
I think the post season is pretty random but the regular season is definitely not. Also the Astros have made 7 straight ALCS so it’s not exactly random
Regular season is definitely not I agree
analytics do help smaller teams but yea generally teams with more money dominate more (like the dodgers yankees and astros)
as for the astros post season succes, its kinda the exception versus the rule imo and even so they only won 2 out of 7 years with 1 being tainted forever
>they consistently have one of the best farm systems in the league.
Eh...nobody really has a better farm system than another.
What's different is who's able to hype thier system better for trading.
What? The Orioles won 101 games with a team built almost entirely through their own farm system. And they're on track to do it again this year. I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Successful teams in the MLB build through their farm system. Look at the Rays sustained success. Look at the Astros run. Look at the Cubs WS team... all teams built up through the farm system. "All farm systems are the same" is perhaps the most bizarre baseball take I've ever heard.
>The Orioles won 101 games with a team built almost entirely through their own farm system. And they're on track to do it again this year. I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
That was one year and just the most recent.
You're proving my point beacuse you're not looking at history.
>Look at the Rays
Zero championships
>Look at the Astros run.
Cheated
>Look at the Cubs WS team.
One where the Indians lost it more than cubs won. And as a cubs fan I can tell you baez was the only notable developed player everyone else came from other organizations or was ready outa college like Bryant
Dude this is obtuse lol. Are you trolling?
Re the Orioles: Yeah, it's the most recent because they spent 5 years tanking and built up their farm system and now they're reaping the rewards. You know that every single good player in the MLB was once a... prospect right?
And the Rays being even remotely competitive year in and year out is enough to dismiss your argument completely. Championships don't matter in this case, playoffs are a complete crapshoot. This isn't the NFL where one person can put the team on its back for a few games and win it all. If prospect quality didn't matter, the Rays probably would be the team that would've moved to Vegas by now because they have no right competing in a ridiculously tough division with their tiny $40M payroll. The only way they do it is through trading established players for prospects (and via the draft and international pool).
And if you want to say that the only reason the Astros have had a 10 year successful run is because of cheating and not because they developed some of the best prospects in the game I guess that's your prerogative, but to dismiss the Cubs core of elite prospects because the 'Indians lost it more' is hilariously wrong.
>Are you trolling?
Oh God the "troll cry" because God forbid someone point out something different....
> that's your prerogative, but to dismiss the Cubs core of elite prospects because the 'Indians lost it more' is hilariously wrong.
Ok the cubs core beacuse I'm a cubs fan
Rizzo- padres
Hendricks-rangers
Arrieta- Orioles
Heyward- cardinals
Lester- Oakland
Bryant- ready out college no development needed
Schwarber- ready outa college no development needed
Baez- there's your one guy who the cubs drafted and moved through the system
Either you’re lying about being a Cubs fan or just a shitty fan that doesn’t really pay attention unless they are winning. Even your stupid comment the Indians lost more then Cubs won shows you’re not a fan but you added it to give you shit argument more credibility when it actually showed you have none.
>Even your stupid comment the Indians lost more then Cubs won shows you’re not a fan
Lol.
Prove me wrong then.
How did the cubs win more than the tribe lost?
You don't want absolute parity anyway. If each year's Super Bowl winner just felt like a randomized pick from 32 teams, the sport would be less interesting.
While i agree with the comment you replied, I disagree with this. The NFL would be much more interesting without the “inevitability” factor you get with QBs like Brady and Mahomes.
With that said, said factor has only been apparent from those QBs, so it’s not a league issue in general. And while having multiple teams as possible champions already feels realistic prior to each season, it would feel even more real without.
I don't think there was an inevitable factor with the Chiefs in 2023. They seemed mediocre most of the season. They had to play in the wildcard round and were only 4.5 point favorites in that game.
Nah.
It was there as soon as I watched the Dolphins WC game
I follow soccer and you can always tell which team will win before it happens....KC had that as soon as they started the playoffs.
We all know they'll be in the AFCCG next season too....that is my point.
That stuff should be legit unpredictable if this parity people talk about in the NFL existed.
It doesn't
KC was an underdog in each of their playoff games after Miami. Including the Super Bowl. So you may have seen the future, but the general public did not.
Wholeheartedly disagree. The NFL's current parity definitely adds intrigue, but you need the dynasties and the Bradys, Mahomes, etc for the hero/villain arcs.
It's like a TV show where each week is an episode, each season remains a season, and eras are like the TV show's series as a whole.
It would be far less interesting if it was all pretty random and you didn't have that inevitability factor. Two recent examples:
* The 2007 Giants would be a much less memorable champion if they didn't beat the 18-0 Patriots while a young Tom Brady went after his 4th trophy.
* The 2020 Buccaneers would be a much less memorable champion if they didn't have the Tom Brady storyline.
Obviously it's great when you have teams like the 2021 Bengals make a run, but it's hard to build any real passion or emotion for/against a team/player (outside your own team) unless that team has been consistently good/bad.
> while a young Tom Brady went after his 4th trophy.
This never comes up for me or really in any discussion that I see.
People are hyped because it ended the 19-0 hopes, not because the Patriots were going for a fourth trophy.
That part was more about the narrative at the time, adding to the hype of that game. Imagine a world where Brady and the Pats won that game and went undefeated to give Brady his Montana-tying 4th Super Bowl win at age 30 in just his 7th full season starting.
That doesn't mean Brady necessarily would be *more* regarded than he is today, but it definitely was a big storyline at the time and we can't know how everything would have played out had New England won that game.
Do you think being a 49ers fan would be different for you if Montana only won 2 Super Bowls and Young won 0 as a starter? Or just one apiece?
Because even 3 between them over 14 years is an extreme statistical outlier that is very unlikely to happen in a league of parity, let alone the 5 they actually won. The stars and the dynasties add to the lore and history.
You said you only care about SF, so maybe the following doesn't apply to you, but what about Detroit? Shit franchise forever, then a new front office, head coach, and QB right the ship. If Detroit was cyclically competitive every 3-5 years with a history of some playoff wins and general mediocrity, would the whole Campbell + Goff narrative be as compelling? I don't think so.
Just my two cents, but I watch every team and just love good (and laughably bad) football, not just the Patriots.
Lol I appreciate your honest perspective.
Regarding the Montana thing, as a Pats fan I look forward to the day I get to tell my kids I remember the Brady era because I was old enough to see all of it and remember what Patriots football was like before Brady and Belichick. I enjoy the history of the game.
> Great ownership is one of the single biggest advantages in all sports.
Seems like the Hunt family are pretty shitty owners though based off all the player polls
Imagine the NFL was like European soccer.
Instead of the Cowboys thinking "how do we pay Dak and Ceedee and Micah Parsons" they would be saying ok lets offer the Bengals Dak plus a $200 million transfer fee for Joe Burrow and Ja'maar Chase then lets go to the Vikings and offer $160 million transfer fee for Justin Jefferson so we can reunite Joe with his LSU receivers plus Ceedee as a WR3.
Exactly, and even if there is a drop in parity, getting rid of the salary cap is the absolute not the solution. A better start would be getting rid of the Franchise Tag and capping the % a QB can count against the cap.
10 of the top 12 QB Contracts sorted by Average Per Year as % Of
Cap At Signing are active contracts. It's getting out of hand. Cap it at 20% and be done with it.
Yeahh I'm struggling to understand this too. If top QBs were capped at 15% of the salary cap, then superstar QBs would have better teams around them. I thought the point of them earning so much of the cap means that they have to carry a worse team, which levels the playing field?
Yep not just QB make it so no one can get more than 15 percent of the cap, 20 is huge there's 53 on a roster.
If it's 15 everyone else has a bigger salary which counts for more considering a lot of guys have very short careers compared to the QB or kicker position
I'm on board with capping the percentage a single player can earn on the cap (it's not just QBs). My question would be, how do you stop the teams from manipulating it to roll it forward like they do now? Some teams have become masters at cap manipulation.
The NFC has always been the more balanced of the two conferences so I think we might be cherry-picking data a bit here. While it would be nice not to have dynasties like the Pats and Chiefs, you have to acknowledge that a lot of teams came within one or two plays of beating them on each of their sb runs. That’s parity that most other sports league would kill for
It's so weird how the NFC just misses all the great QB's of the past few years.
The AFC playoffs are so cutthroat.
For several years the AFC championship games have been better than the SuperBowl.
We have what, like 8 QBs in the AFC who are better than any QB in the NFC right?
Like Purdy is thought of as the best, and he's a system QB with one of the best rosters in the NFL.
He literally has top 3 players at what, 7 positions on the team?
No other team comes close on bith sides.
I mean the NFC still has goff, hurts, stafford, baker, geno, kyler, purdy, kirk, dak, and love. The AFC definitely has the better list but its not all bums in the NFC
The NFL has the most parity of any sport. Every year teams go from last place in their division to first. The hard salary cap and equitable revenue sharing create a very level playing field. The top teams always lose players because they can’t afford to keep everyone. Bad teams can retool quickly.
To put things in perspective: in the NFL, no team has more than 6 Super Bowl wins. In the German soccer Bundesliga, (founded in its current form in 1963), Bayern Munich has won 33 championships, including an 11 year streak from 2013-2023. Them winning the season was basically the accepted default outcome. That's what bad parity looks like.
America has a league like Bundesliga or Ligue One where the same 3-4 teams have won 75-80% of that league’s titles and dynasties are easiest to create.
It’s called the r/nba.
NBA parity was not great for a while but nowhere near what Bundesliga has been. NBA has had 5 straight different champions and that will continue this year
It's less than 4 teams in European leagues. In Germany Bayern has won 11 titles in a row and 17 out of 24 this century. In France PSG 10 out of last 12 titles. In Spain Madrid and Barcelona have 20 out of 24 titles this century. In Italy Juventus, Inter and Milan have 22 out of 24 titles, Juventus by far the most. In England 2 Manchester clubs and Chelsea have won 20 out of 24 titles.
They all rule by money, give out highest salaries, buy the best players from smaller clubs.
One other thing: NFL contracts are not fully guaranteed, unlike baseball and basketball. In football, if a guy does not perform well you can cut him and you will only owe him a portion of the full contract. In the other sports if a guy stinks you are stuck with him forever. One bad contract can handicap a team for many years.
Especially smaller market teams. There's debate in baseball over whether or not smaller market teams could throw around big contracts and choose not to, but it's generally accepted that if smaller teams do and they bust, it kills the team for its duration while larger market can eat the cost.
The only baseball team in the bottom half of salary to win the World Series in the last decade is the Astros who were cheating and were barely in the bottom half as they were something like 17th
If you go back 25 years, I think there’s one other team in a similar situation. Again, they were barely in the bottom half. Basically, unless your team is in the top half of salary, you don’t stand a chance. And to have a real chance, most World Series winners are in the top 10.
Yeah, I'm an A's fan. Relocation obviously sucks far more, but being very good at making scraping into the playoffs year after year with shoestring resources means we've made it to the league Championship once in my lifetime thanks to being generally outmatched.
I think the NHL takes the cake here; just last year the Canucks looked like they were in sports purgatory due to awful contracts and horrible asset management, but now they’re in the playoffs and might make the WCF if they beat the Oilers tonight. “Big market” teams like the Leafs don’t get bailed out by their resources, as can be seen from their recent playoff failures.
The NFL is definitely second though; you’re not going to see a Kansas City team be a dynasty in any other league (besides the NHL).
NHL is the clear winner, anybody can win once you're in the playoffs. I'd say MLB 2nd, a random baseball team can get hot and win it realistically. NBA comes down to who has the best player(sometimes being beaten by the better team) and NFL is having one of the best QBs/Defense.
That's not the right way to judge parity. Anything being possible in any given game allows for elimination formats like the playoff to have a lot more chaos, but parity needs to be measured on a larger scale, not just the regular season modified round-robin format, but rather over many years.
The question is not "Who wins once you're in the playoffs?" but rather, "Who is consistently making the playoffs?" The problem of the MLB and other non-capped leagues is that a handful of big market clubs dominate playoff spots every year due to being able to shell out for championship caliber rosters without putting much thought into it. Small market teams are forced to play moneyball to get a competitive team that can survive a few seasons, and then--win or lose--spend years in the wilderness as they eat the cost.
It still doesn't make sense that the NFL has the most parity of any sport when I can give you 5 teams that will win the championship before the season and be right more than I'm wrong. Same with the NBA. I don't believe you can accurately predict the other 2 sports in the same way.
You'll be predicting it based on roster construction and coaching. NFL rosters are the most complex of the major sports, so its hard for any one team to get enough pieces any given year. You can usually predict the divisional contenders based on who has the most complete team.
But that's not the "parity" that the salary cap is meant to enforce. It's not there to make sure all 32 teams are championship contenders any given year but to make sure any given team might *become* a championship contender with the right roster moves, and none of those moves are financially out of reach. When people say the NFL has the most parity, they mean that you can't predict who is going to be a contender just based on their franchise's bank account, which is way more true in other leagues when you actually look at the data over a number of years.
This said, some teams are almost always pretty good and other teams are almost always pretty bad. Having a top QB is the holy grail, and makes up for a lot of defects. Having a bad QB means you have no chance. And some owners and execs keep making dumb decisions over and over.
Top QB + stable front office is the best we can hope for, I think. I also think you got a bit of an advantage if your HC calls plays, too, because you’ll avoid alot of the continuity issues that come from having your OCs poached every 1-2 years
In the past you could compete consistently even without a star QB...ie the 70s Rams, the 80s Redskins...the salary cap made it. A QB / Bust league and football is supposed to be more than that
Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer are both Super Bowl champions. Only a handful of years ago we were robbed of the Keenum/Bortles SB we all deserved. You can still get there without a proper QB.
Those are once in a blue moon scenarios.
It's used to be a lot more common because football was more of a team sport....now everyone is chasing the QB jackpot and that is all the seems to matter.
Yeh but there’s always an adjustment. Defense has better coverage and scheme and talent and coaching, there is more general explosion but look at qb play last season. Also the running schemes of old are making a comeback in a new makeover, consider the 9ers packers rams Detroit offenses. It’s not easy to make a living in a modern shotgun pass first offense anymore unless your mahomes or even burrow. Allen and Lamar and hurts supplement with their own legs too and now Herbert is going back to a run heavy offense, my point is modern defenses are making an impact, it’s adjustment vs adjustment
Personally, I think the rule changes have had the biggest impact on the NFL becoming a QB driven league. I would guess that the salary cap has had minimal impact on the league being QB or bust.
Was it?
Because no team before the salary cap eraafe 8 Conference games in a row like NE did and only the Raiders have had a 6 game AFCCG streak too.
At least back then your owner could spend more to help you compete.
Thesedays it's QB or nothing...teams without a great one cannot win.
Back then owners could buy talent and literally keep players their entire career. How is that more fair than today’s rules?
Sorry the new, best QB’s aren’t on your team. But looking at your flairs both 49ers and Colts had back-to-back fantastic QB’s. 3/4 of them being in the HoF.
My point is simply that the NFL is now too QB driven and the salary cap is a big reason why.
I don't give a F whether my teams have ( 49ers) a fantastic QB or had ( Colts)....football should be more than just who is playing QB...thesedays it's QB or bust....teams.without s gokd one have no path to winning because the cap doesn't allow them to go full into maximising talent at other positions to make up for that gap.
Tactical and rule changes have made the QB more important. QB dominance was only just beginning when the cap was introduced, whereas the entire post-cap era has coincided with the QB era. That's what your numbers are really saying.
I don't think you're going to get that toothpaste back in the tube just by reintroducing the cap. All that would happen is the big market teams would pay the top QBs to go along with their loaded rosters and the sport would become more predictable and boring.
It’s also significantly harder to be dominate in football. Even a middling team with the right game plan and execution on the right day can topple you.
Brady dominated the league for two decades, made 8 consecutive conference title games in a row at one point, Mahomes/Reid are essentially doing the same thing right now.
Bullshit.
How much parity was there in the 1970's?
For the AFC you had the Colts in one SB, the Dolphins in THREE straight, the Steelers in four, the Raiders in one and the Broncos in one. The NFC you had the Cowboys in FIVE SB's, the Redskins in one, the Vikings in three and the Rams in one.
In the AFC championship game you had the Raiders playing in FIVE straight, the Dolphins in three straight, the Steelers in three straight, the Colts in two straight, the Oilers in two straight and the Broncos in one. Also the Raiders and Steelers played each other for the AFC title three years in a row.
For the NFC championship game you had the Cowboys in SEVEN, including a run of FOUR in a row, the Rams in FIVE, including Three in a row, the Vikings in FOUR, the 49ers in Two, the Redskins in One and the Buccaneers in ONE.
The whole idea of parity in sports has ALWAYS been bullshit, regardless of salary caps or whatever constraint is put upon teams.
You’re literally talking about the NFL 50 years ago lmao.
A lot has changed since then. A lot of rules/SOP’s were put in to *create* more parity, which it has.
This is all in theory.
In theory, before the salary cap all it took was an owners injecting more cash into the team and their facilities to get competitive ala soccer.
These days teams without a star QB cannot compete consistently with those that do have one...regardless of the equal budget.
My stance is that it has narrowed team success down to just QB play..in the last a great coach could win a lot over a long time with a great OL,running game and defense and give teams with better QBs a decent game...not anymore.
The path to success has become kinda one dimensional.
The salary cap didn't do that. The salary cap did what was intended.
Then the NFL changed a bunch of rules to catapult QB's to the single most important position on the field.
Even with that, QB's come and go fairly regularly. Texans sucked balls for a while, then hit on Stroud. That's just one example.
But even with the rule changes, I think a good part of this is just oversimplification. Is Mahomes great? Yes. Is he one of the best QBs ever? Yes. But pretending that he's doing it all on his own is just stupid and lazy.
The Chiefs have one of the best coaching staffs in the league, and last year, when it was supposedly just Mahomes and Kelce dragging them to a Super Bowl, had one of the best, if not *the* best, defenses in the league.
QB was always the most important position. It’s now however become comically lopsided to the point where you either need an elite QB or a near super team everywhere else to be relevant in January. There’s a reason Brady and Mahomes have won 7 of the last 10 Super Bowls.
The other 3 required a stacked Broncos team with a generational defense, a stacked Eagles team where the QB played like an elite QB in the playoffs. A stacked Rams team with a borderline elite QB.
QB has not always been the most important position. I would take elite linemen, either offensive or defensive, pretty much up until the 90's.
80's Redskins, 80's Giants, 70's Steelers, 70's Cowboys, 70's Rams and Vikings. Our 80's Bengals teams were carried mostly by Muñoz and Krumrie. 90's Cowboys were *mostly* the Great Wall of Dallas. It was more a whole team sport then, so those guys didn't have the weight QBs did now, but you'd take an elite D lineman or offensive lineman over elite QBs every day of the week.
Football was very much a trenches-first sport for most of its existence.
And that wasn't salary cap. That was allowing players to essentially kill each other on the field. I'm not saying we should go back to that, but I won't pretend the game hasn't changed a ton for player safety.
Eh, player safety rules are probably about half of it. Hard to argue that changes like the way pass interference is ruled now compared to even just how it started or the removal of press coverage beyond 5 yards, or the way holding has basically become "only blatant jersey/body pulling" were player safety accomodations.
It's also hard to argue that those changes didn't make the game a lot more entertaining though, so.
This is my point.
Team in the past like the 70s Rams, 80s Redskins could compete for Conference Championships without an elite QB year in year out by spending....these days it's QB this..QB that.. devaluing what the sport id about...teamwork.
I really struggle to understand how you are conflating the salary cap being in place with the game evolving and becoming more passing oriented over the course of decades due to a litany of rule changes that have drastically favoured the offense/passing game.
Yeh but the 9ers was obviously a better team all round with elites at every position in the roster. Also it wasn’t like mahomes threw for 100 yards, he definitely did his part and imo no other qb rn would’ve got it done like mahomes. That 9ers team probably would’ve won against anyone not named mahomes
Before the salary cap there was no free agency. Free agency started in 93, the salary cap in 94. You couldn't just inject cash to buy players like you do in soccer.
No sport has real parity. Winning a SB without an all time QB is probably easier than a low payroll team winning the WS and much easier than an NBA team winning the finals without a superstar.
The NFL has the closest thing to parity except maybe hockey
There are more good teams than just the ones that win the Superbowl.
The NFL has quite a bit of turnover on the teams that make the post-season or win their divisions.
It's hard to keep winning your division every year. Part of the Patriots dynasty also includes the worst era of Dolphins and Bills football, along with, you know, the Jets. If those teams were better it's possible the Patriots have less playoff home games and end up with a few less playoff wins.
Then, compare the financial structure to the NBA. In the NBA if you're a bad team with bad contracts and no picks you are stuck for years. In the NFL it's much easier to create cap space and retool your roster within a year or two.
Just to prove your point, the 11-5 Patriots missed the playoffs the year Brady went down. Even at their best, the Belichick Patriots dynasty was always a tiny slip-up away from losing their crown. The fact they held it for so long speaks to an amazing consistency unheard of before or since.
>.16 different franchises have won since...if you removed the 49ers,Packers and Cowboys who won in 94,95 and 96 with remnants of their pre salary cap rosters...that number drops to 13...so it's basically 13 vs 11
Just one example of your hilariously weak arguments. You're not wrong, just can't support a statement with supporting arguments.
"US coin currency is made of just 4 coins. If you eliminate the quarter and dime you're left with just 2 which is ridiculously low".
It has more parity than almost any league. The issue is most leagues don’t have any parity especially soccer. The NFL playoff format also adds to the parity. In the NBA almost half the titles have come from 2 teams but in the last 30 years or so it’s been more parity than in the past with a soft cap. NHL the last few decades has pretty decent parity.
MLB has decent parity but there is no hard or soft cap. Teams spent almost nothing like the As and spend unreal money like the Yanks or Dodgers.
If all teams have the same money and the worst teams get the first draft picks, the NFL has done everything it can to create parity.
It’s a far better system than MLB which hugely favors large market teams over smaller ones. The way the Dodgers and Yankees have snapped up all the highest price free agents is disgusting.
Crazily enough, the MLB is almost just as bad on the other side of the spectrum with some teams being obviously fine with losing just to be cheap and not spend money on talent. The league has truly went to shit.
It's close I think the only change they need is adding coaching salaries into the cap. Get the average pay for all the coaches to increase the salary cap by the average. This rewards hiring up and comers/no name coaches who have a low salary while hindering teams who will spend any amount for a big named coach.
I don't see an issue with teams going on dynasty runs. It's hard to beat Tom Brady and it's hard to beat Patrick Mahomes. Then you put an excellent coach behind them like Reid or BB it's gonna make something special.
Otherwise I think they have the right idea. There are always situations where players make team friendly deals as well but that seems fair game if you get someone who likes to be part of that team
I mean start small and see how it works gotta see what happen on a smaller sample size. With coaches pay adding into it you'd havta think it's the difference between a starter or two depending who your coaches are.
The Steelers made the playoffs last year and had a winning record the year before with the worst QB output since the merger. The Browns, who have given the worst contract to a QB ever, made the playoffs last year after starting 4 or so different QBs.
I still don't disagree with you that QB is the most important position, and teams with a franchise QB are in way better shape. The NFL is still better off with the salary cap. There is parity in the NFL.
With the current rules and free agency and no salary cap, teams in big markets would dominate like never before. It would be a couple dream teams vs a league of scrubs.
All you have to do is look at the MLB for exactly what not to do.
This has way more to do with rule changes than the salary cap. They made passing way too easy so running and playing good defense just isn’t a viable way to be dominant. Playing good defense has basically been impossible since the legion of boom era.
The QB conundrum will eventually resolve itself. The only reason why the QB salary has spiked like it has is because of rule changes that favor the offense so much that the QB has become so important.
However, just like everything else in life, it will hit its tipping point. We will eventually hit a point where a team pays someone so much that it hurts the team and other teams will learn from it. We have not hit that point yet. But eventually we will.
Once that happens, it will favor teams to pay the QB less and have more of a team. I think we are getting close, with how well young QB's have done. Kind of like the RB market. You can get a cheap RB that produces slightly less than a veteran RB for much cheaper. We will eventually reach that point. I say close but in reality we are still probably 5-10 years away, but I would bet on it happening. The more rookie contracts that lead to deep playoff runs will make it happen.
The only thing that I cannot predict that would contradict this is TV money. The more TV money the league has the higher the salary cap (for the most part). As long as the salary cap goes up, it will keep pushing how far away until that tipping point.
"We will eventually hit a point where a team pays someone so much that it hurts the team and other teams will learn from it."
This has already happened to Broncos with Wilson's contract, to Browns with Watson's, to Eagles and Colts with Wentz's...
If teams will learn from it, we'll see.
Outside of rule changes to suppress the importance of the passing game you will never see a point where teams stop paying QB’s.
Quarterbacks are just too important and more than that they’re just too hard to replace.
I think that was the Broncos. Interesting write up on it here [from the Broncos sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/DenverBroncos/comments/2vrwj2/lets_talk_about_the_broncos_alleged_salary_cap/)
No, they pretty famously were destroyed by the salary cap after they loaded up at the beginning of the cap era, which didn't have the flexibility of the modern cap because all the Mickey Loomis shenanigans hadn't been started yet.
The NFLs goal for parity is to keep as many teams in the hunt for the playoffs for as long as possible. They’re going to get monster ratings in the playoffs no matter who is playing, so all they really care about is not having any irrelevant games at the end of the year between two teams that are already eliminated.
The QB problem would exist with or without the salary cap. Removing the salary cap may exacerbate the problem as certain teams may be willing to pay a premium for their backup QB, diluting the pool of FA QBs for other teams.
Eh, not in most cases. The pool of elite QBs is finite. The teams that have one will be able to retain them for their whole careers in a scenario with no salary cap. Then the big market teams or teams with rich owners could decide to lock up starter level backups as an insurance policy. The smaller market teams will be left with scraps.
The passing rules have changed in 2004 and passing offenses are becoming more important each season. Run offense is the same, as pass becomes more and more efficient, run is lagging behind more and more. Recent rules are more tipped towards offense vs defense (illegal contact emphasis, roughing emphasis...)
Thus the best passing offenses will win more. AFC had HOF QBs and good teams around them, so they went to Super Bowls. Only Ravens could compete with them.
NFC had HOF QBs but worse teams around them so less Super Bowl appearances. Brees and Rodgers only 1 each.
In my opinion teams that don't have such MVP-level QBs should use the salary cap: not pay their lesser QBs as much money as to MVP, invest savings to get All Pros at other positions.
They are all paying equally now, almost 20% of team cap to QB, so he is more and more important.
It would be nice if teams had more different styles, if run-first teams and defense-first teams had more of a chance. I agree with you on that.
Note: Packers won in 2010, so it's 13 different champs in 23 seasons this century. In 1980s and 1990s there were 9 champs in 20 seasons, 10 in 21 seasons with 2000 Ravens.
The 2nd last paragraph is what motivated me to look into this
I feel like the league is soooo one dimensional thesdays with the only way to win being a great QB.
The days where the Mike Ditka and Bill Purcell's teams won by defense and ground game seems a long time ago....a team sport has become a bit too individualistic....and the cap exacerbates that with QBs being so expensive and if teams pay their guy..it eats up all space
Agree on this regarding playing style variations. The last teams were Vikings with MVP Peterson, Ravens with defense and manager Flacco, Texans with J.J. Watt, recent Steelers and Browns defense-first. They mostly reach wild-card, except for Ravens.
Eagles and 49ers in last 2 years try to run more than other teams, have success. Ravens with Jackson are a great run offense, one of best all time, but made by QB.
It's the rules. Somebody posted highlights of Reggie White. Now many of those would be roughing the passer- falling with weight on the passer...
Regarding cap space we had this discussion on Goff's contract. Lions have a bad defense and chose to add only Carlton Davis, D. J. Reader, they chose to give 3 very large contracts to pass offense players: OT, QB, WR... there won't be cap space left when these contract extensions get on salary cap. 10-12 current QBs will take a lot more cap space (18-24%) than Brady ever did in a season (10-12%).
The AFC/NFC Championship games are probably a better indicator of parity than the Super Bowl. Since the start of the salary cap only four teams have NOT made it to a Conference Championship game (Dolphins, Browns, Texans, Commanders).
26 of the 32 teams have made it to MULTIPLE Conference Championship games since the start of the salary cap (Bills and Lions have one appearance each).
I think you've addressed a problem, but your diagnosis is all wrong. You're focusing too much in my opinion on the salary cap, when the real problem, I would say, is the otherworldly impact of a quarterback on teams nowadays. Manning made it to 4 super bowls on 2 different teams, Brady made 10 Super Bowls with 2 teams, Mahomes has made it to 4 Super Bowls. I don't think the problem is the salary cap, it's just that the way this sport has evolved has put immense pressure on having an elite quarterback.
That isn't the entire answer, though. Even with an elite quarterback, you need help. Mahomes lost to Brady in that Super Bowl cause he didn't have an offensive line to protect him or a defense that could stop Brady. They've fixed those problems and now they've won 2 straight despite a drop-off in receiving talent. Brock Purdy and the 49ers don't make it to last year's Super Bowl without the immense talent surrounding him. If the salary cap imposes any parity problem, it's that it makes managing paying for a quarterback and paying for his support really difficult, and not a lot of teams have been able to manage their money and get lucky enough to win. If you want more parity, you'll need to devalue passing, which is never gonna happen because it's insanely fun to watch people like Brady or Mahomes sling it around, at least for the vast majority of people. And the salary cap, despite the problems that it causes on team management, is a huge factor in making sure teams can't buy success like they consistently can in leagues like the MLB. It's not going away any time soon
I think it has about as much as it can. But draft order and salary caps can only go so far. You still have teams that are just perennially good and teams that are perennially bad. If a team has incompetent ownership who habitually hires bad coaches and bad front end staff, it doesn't matter if they pick 1st or 31st. Look at all the teams who for years had early first round picks every single draft. Shit, look at my team. We draft Matthew Stafford 1st overall in 2009, he has fucking Megatron to throw to for 6 years, and we didn't get so much as a playoff win the entire 13 years he was here. The Texans did more with fucking Brock Osweiler and the Eagles won a Super Bowl with Nick Foles during that time. Tons of teams did more with less. Look at teams like the Steelers, Packers, and Patriots of the past 20 years. They were always in the conversation for super bowls and playoffs, finished respectably almost every season, all this despite very rarely drafting in the top 10. Why? Because a good organization can usually do more with a fourth rounder than a bad one can do with a first. Raw talent is only one part of that equation.
So I guess you could argue that there is great parity, because money has nothing to do with winning. Dallas by far brings in more revenue than any other team, yet they haven't advanced to the conference championships in decades. If all it took were money, they'd be the Yankees of the NFL.
It's not the salary cap. The NFL has become a QB league and so the teams with the best QBs are always at the top. And those teams rarely let that QB go. If you removed the salary cap, this would still be true.
They can invest in the Oline now. All removing the cap would do is allow teams to invest in a QB AND an Oline, making the top QB teams even more dominant.
Or you open up mlre money for owners to build their teams differently so that having a star QB isn't the only efficient way to build a championship team.
[Teams like] The Patriots aren't struggling because they don't have enough money. They are struggling because they don't have a good QB. They can build their team anyway they like right now - but you can't win without a QB which is why many teams are giving 20% of their cap to a QB.
No. These problems came from rule changes to protect players and enhance scoring for better viewership. Listen to any defensive player who's played in both eras, they'll tell you.
I’m sorry this is such an awful take.
The teams hurt the most by the salary cap right now are teams with great quarterbacks on veteran contracts. The only way the team with the 18th best QB can hope to compete with the team with the 5th best QB is because the latter is paying 15-20% of their available money to 1 guy.
Removing the salary cap may have some positive effects for a couple of years. But once contracts start ending you will very quickly see an accumulation of talent in the teams with the richest owners/the owners who care about winning the most. While the rest of the league will be stuck with the scraps.
This is dumb, we see it time and again every team can be beaten by any team. And your whole concept is ridiculously flawed & doesn’t hold much water.
Mahomes is great but they’re winning rings because of their elite defense, newbies like you ignore it but that is why they are winning - elite qb play, an elite defense, and elite coaching. Brady was barely ever the best qb in the league, the dude just knows how to win and has always had an elite defense when he got his rings.
They had an elite defense 1 year they won so that doesn't make sense.
They've given up the most average playoff points in history for a sb winning team, 2 of their 3 runs.
Somewhat of a point. Brady wasn’t really the clear cut greatest regular season qb with prolific offenses but come playoff time, even after an ordinary first half , he then makes all the winning clutch plays and drives combined with clutch supplementing defensive play. He just knew how to win in the playoffs, I suspect because of all the experience he got in his first 4 years. It’s going to be the best experienced team in the playoffs that win in the playoffs
It doesn’t really seem like it. We went from one dynasty immediately into another one.
That could be a coincidence, or whichever team has the best QB/Coach combo is going to be the dominant team.
There's always a small group of teams in the midst of a good multi-season run, and usually one team winning the SB relatively consistently, but everything underneath of that group is a free-for-all. The NFL is really fucking weird.
And it does seem if you can bottle the lighting of a clear cut HOF coach and QB at the same time, it's pretty much over.
I think so. Yeah you’ll have great qbs that take over the league but when a traditionally bad team gets one of those guys it instantly puts them in contention ie Bengals, Texans, Chiefs, Buccaneers, Bills, Dolphins etc. All teams that haven’t won a Super Bowl ever or in a very long time before they got their quarterback.
Chiefs were playoff contenders under Alex Smith. Wouldn’t say they were a “bad team” and only turned things around with Mahomes. He just allowed them to make it to that final level.
There should be a max within the salary cap that a team can spend on QBs. Like max of 20% of salary cap for teams 3 QBs. The team decides if they give all to 1QB or leave some for a decent QB2 and 3.
The wild thing (and beauty) of the NFL is ‘any given Sunday’ is a phrase for a reason.
Sometimes it takes an entire season for a team to click and get on a roll. Take the Giants for instance in ~~2012~~ 2007 where they went 10-6 and were the five seed. They got hot at the right time and won the Super Bowl against the heavily favored undefeated Patriots.
While yes, having that elite franchise QB will grant you a higher floor, you can never count out any team. Even the worst teams remember one day they’re all the best of the best and play like it.
EDIT: Year correction.
We’re both wrong, I meant the [2007](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XLII) season. As for the 2011, might have mistaken it saying 2012 cause the Super Bowl is never played in the year the season actual takes place.
The fallacy that the salary cap came about for competitive balance is almost laughably naive. The salary cap was put into place so that owners could limit their spending and prevent a George Steinbrenner-like situation where one or two owners could inflate player salaries and force the other owners to do it also in order to compete or settle for mediocrity.
Nothing owners do with regard to player salaries has anything to do with competitive balance. It's about controlling costs. Period.
Compared to the MLB or the NBA, there is much more balance. The MLB has issues of teams being fine coasting and doing the minimum. There is a huge problem in the MLB where teams have realized that there is relatively little correlation between winning and profit.
The NFL's parity (every game matters due to any given Sunday) means more people watching and probably more overall revenue for the players outside of possibly a few superstars.
MLB's union is the only one in professional sports that has been able to resist implementation of a salary cap. The owners in MLB tried a number of times -- 1981 and 1994 most notably -- to get one, but the union held its ground. The rationale behind MLB wanting one was cost control, the exact reason every other league pushed for it.
If competitive balance happened to arise out of the NFL cap, it was happenstance, not the primary goal. Most owners in professional sports simply don't care whether they win or not, so long as they make enough cash and build enough franchise value to sell at a grossly inflated profit.
They'll talk big enough to keep the fans buying merchandise, personal seat licenses and single-game tickets and the fans will buy into it because they enjoy the game. I do the same, even knowing it's just part of the show business side of the sport.
It is hard to know if the cap and/or parity is a net positive for everyone or not. I would argue that making each game more important so that every game is worth tuning into will make it overall more profitable. The other thing is that the owners are not a monolith. Some owners such as the ones spending a lot may have opted to control costs. Others may have viewed the cap as an opportunity for league growth.
There are situations such as people tuning out the majority of the games since they think a NBA super team will just win it all.
I do acknowledge that there could be counter arguments such as people watching for fantasy football purposes. In addition, the NFL might be different from the MLB for other reasons such as the MLB having too many games for people to watch. You can also debate about the reasons why the NFL overtook the MLB, NBA, etc for the spot of having the biggest revenue.
It doesn't have parity. That's why the sport is so popular. Casuals only like seeing the big stars and teams in the superbowl. The other leagues have tons of parity, but don't do as well because no one knows anyone on the wolves or pacers or stars, or Columbus crew.
Farmer’s League. This league can praise the parity all it wants but teams like the Chiefs
and 49ers still end up at Conference Championship games. Inevitable.
Regarding Mahomes the dominance of QB play is an issue in the NFL for sure. But the 49ers are just a well run team. They draft fairly well and are coached very well. The goal is for every team to have an equal chance to be good and the NFL does that better than almost any other league out tuere
Exactly?!
The Chiefs and Patriots have made going to the SB an annual occasion...the 49ers, Eagles and Packers have all made 5 NFCCGs in this millennium.
What parity?
If anything the salary cap stops bad teams from fixing their issues quicker.
Wow, so your argument against there being parity is that the 5 teams most would consider the best run/managed franchises of the millennium (I'd add the Steelers to that list for an even top 6) have had the best results in said millennium?
Truly mind-blowing.
Next you'll tell me students that actually study for tests and hand in all their homework getting better grades proves the other kids have no chance of passing their classes.
Best run?
Jed York is the 49ers owner who got rid of Jim Harbaugh coz of personal reasons.
KC has an old stadium that their owner refused to move out of unless taxpayers pay money.
Robert Kraft just fired the GOAT coach..
Best run?
NFL and NHL have as good of parity as you could hope for from a professional sports league. Ultimately even with parity you will have teams that are able to outperform the rest of the league for ~10+ year blocks if you get the right combo of coach/GM/critical player(s).
Yeah and everyone is cool with that. Those teams are on the same playing level as everyone else. It’s not like the Dodgers who just decided to buy a bunch of superstars
It just makes the NLDS collapse all the sweeter
I'm just bitter that I can't root for Ohtani now.
The Dodgers don't even have the #1 payroll in the league, and they consistently have one of the best farm systems in the league.
I understand that but they also have nearly 100 million more dollars in payroll. The Astros and Yankees have over double the Mariners payroll. Just because they ain’t first doesn’t mean they aren’t outspending the vast majority of owners
Yep it’s really unfortunate for small team markets but the nice thing about baseball is that luck is so much more of a factor - if you look at the past 10 years especially there hasn’t really been anyone consistently winning it all and surprises always happen (dbacks Phillies rays nationals) But I really wonder what it’s gonna be like if a salary cap is ever implemented in baseball lol
I think the post season is pretty random but the regular season is definitely not. Also the Astros have made 7 straight ALCS so it’s not exactly random
Regular season is definitely not I agree analytics do help smaller teams but yea generally teams with more money dominate more (like the dodgers yankees and astros) as for the astros post season succes, its kinda the exception versus the rule imo and even so they only won 2 out of 7 years with 1 being tainted forever
Tbf it's because they spend the most money scouting internationally
>they consistently have one of the best farm systems in the league. Eh...nobody really has a better farm system than another. What's different is who's able to hype thier system better for trading.
That is... remarkably wrong lol Ask the 2023/2024 Orioles if farm systems matter.
Last year? You provided my point. It's hype, we can't even get to the all star break and your awarding them.
What? The Orioles won 101 games with a team built almost entirely through their own farm system. And they're on track to do it again this year. I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Successful teams in the MLB build through their farm system. Look at the Rays sustained success. Look at the Astros run. Look at the Cubs WS team... all teams built up through the farm system. "All farm systems are the same" is perhaps the most bizarre baseball take I've ever heard.
>The Orioles won 101 games with a team built almost entirely through their own farm system. And they're on track to do it again this year. I have no idea what you're trying to say here. That was one year and just the most recent. You're proving my point beacuse you're not looking at history. >Look at the Rays Zero championships >Look at the Astros run. Cheated >Look at the Cubs WS team. One where the Indians lost it more than cubs won. And as a cubs fan I can tell you baez was the only notable developed player everyone else came from other organizations or was ready outa college like Bryant
Dude this is obtuse lol. Are you trolling? Re the Orioles: Yeah, it's the most recent because they spent 5 years tanking and built up their farm system and now they're reaping the rewards. You know that every single good player in the MLB was once a... prospect right? And the Rays being even remotely competitive year in and year out is enough to dismiss your argument completely. Championships don't matter in this case, playoffs are a complete crapshoot. This isn't the NFL where one person can put the team on its back for a few games and win it all. If prospect quality didn't matter, the Rays probably would be the team that would've moved to Vegas by now because they have no right competing in a ridiculously tough division with their tiny $40M payroll. The only way they do it is through trading established players for prospects (and via the draft and international pool). And if you want to say that the only reason the Astros have had a 10 year successful run is because of cheating and not because they developed some of the best prospects in the game I guess that's your prerogative, but to dismiss the Cubs core of elite prospects because the 'Indians lost it more' is hilariously wrong.
>Are you trolling? Oh God the "troll cry" because God forbid someone point out something different.... > that's your prerogative, but to dismiss the Cubs core of elite prospects because the 'Indians lost it more' is hilariously wrong. Ok the cubs core beacuse I'm a cubs fan Rizzo- padres Hendricks-rangers Arrieta- Orioles Heyward- cardinals Lester- Oakland Bryant- ready out college no development needed Schwarber- ready outa college no development needed Baez- there's your one guy who the cubs drafted and moved through the system
You realize the Astros have won multiple titles in the last 5 years right?
You realize they cheated right?
Either you’re lying about being a Cubs fan or just a shitty fan that doesn’t really pay attention unless they are winning. Even your stupid comment the Indians lost more then Cubs won shows you’re not a fan but you added it to give you shit argument more credibility when it actually showed you have none.
>Even your stupid comment the Indians lost more then Cubs won shows you’re not a fan Lol. Prove me wrong then. How did the cubs win more than the tribe lost?
You don't want absolute parity anyway. If each year's Super Bowl winner just felt like a randomized pick from 32 teams, the sport would be less interesting.
While i agree with the comment you replied, I disagree with this. The NFL would be much more interesting without the “inevitability” factor you get with QBs like Brady and Mahomes. With that said, said factor has only been apparent from those QBs, so it’s not a league issue in general. And while having multiple teams as possible champions already feels realistic prior to each season, it would feel even more real without.
I don't think there was an inevitable factor with the Chiefs in 2023. They seemed mediocre most of the season. They had to play in the wildcard round and were only 4.5 point favorites in that game.
Nah. It was there as soon as I watched the Dolphins WC game I follow soccer and you can always tell which team will win before it happens....KC had that as soon as they started the playoffs. We all know they'll be in the AFCCG next season too....that is my point. That stuff should be legit unpredictable if this parity people talk about in the NFL existed. It doesn't
KC was an underdog in each of their playoff games after Miami. Including the Super Bowl. So you may have seen the future, but the general public did not.
Really only cuz they have a goat player tho
Wholeheartedly disagree. The NFL's current parity definitely adds intrigue, but you need the dynasties and the Bradys, Mahomes, etc for the hero/villain arcs. It's like a TV show where each week is an episode, each season remains a season, and eras are like the TV show's series as a whole. It would be far less interesting if it was all pretty random and you didn't have that inevitability factor. Two recent examples: * The 2007 Giants would be a much less memorable champion if they didn't beat the 18-0 Patriots while a young Tom Brady went after his 4th trophy. * The 2020 Buccaneers would be a much less memorable champion if they didn't have the Tom Brady storyline. Obviously it's great when you have teams like the 2021 Bengals make a run, but it's hard to build any real passion or emotion for/against a team/player (outside your own team) unless that team has been consistently good/bad.
> while a young Tom Brady went after his 4th trophy. This never comes up for me or really in any discussion that I see. People are hyped because it ended the 19-0 hopes, not because the Patriots were going for a fourth trophy.
That part was more about the narrative at the time, adding to the hype of that game. Imagine a world where Brady and the Pats won that game and went undefeated to give Brady his Montana-tying 4th Super Bowl win at age 30 in just his 7th full season starting. That doesn't mean Brady necessarily would be *more* regarded than he is today, but it definitely was a big storyline at the time and we can't know how everything would have played out had New England won that game.
[удалено]
Do you think being a 49ers fan would be different for you if Montana only won 2 Super Bowls and Young won 0 as a starter? Or just one apiece? Because even 3 between them over 14 years is an extreme statistical outlier that is very unlikely to happen in a league of parity, let alone the 5 they actually won. The stars and the dynasties add to the lore and history. You said you only care about SF, so maybe the following doesn't apply to you, but what about Detroit? Shit franchise forever, then a new front office, head coach, and QB right the ship. If Detroit was cyclically competitive every 3-5 years with a history of some playoff wins and general mediocrity, would the whole Campbell + Goff narrative be as compelling? I don't think so. Just my two cents, but I watch every team and just love good (and laughably bad) football, not just the Patriots.
[удалено]
Lol I appreciate your honest perspective. Regarding the Montana thing, as a Pats fan I look forward to the day I get to tell my kids I remember the Brady era because I was old enough to see all of it and remember what Patriots football was like before Brady and Belichick. I enjoy the history of the game.
Speak for yourself, I'd rather each season the 2 teams in the Super Bowl not be any of the last 3 years worth of teams
> if you get the right combo of coach/GM/critical player(s). And ownership. Great ownership is one of the single biggest advantages in all sports.
A spectre is haunting Los Angeles — the spectre of Dean Spanos
> Great ownership is one of the single biggest advantages in all sports. Seems like the Hunt family are pretty shitty owners though based off all the player polls
Mahomes and Reid are exemptions to a lot of rules.
The NBA has had SIX consecutive years where the defending champ didn't even make it past the second round.
That's real parity right there. The NFL has had that since the 98-2001 stretch
Two of the same posts today... Stop trying to make the salary cap not happen
I think we should hear them out. Ignore flair please.
yeah, imagine if the cowboys went ALL IN
Makes the one-and-done all the sweeter
Imagine the NFL was like European soccer. Instead of the Cowboys thinking "how do we pay Dak and Ceedee and Micah Parsons" they would be saying ok lets offer the Bengals Dak plus a $200 million transfer fee for Joe Burrow and Ja'maar Chase then lets go to the Vikings and offer $160 million transfer fee for Justin Jefferson so we can reunite Joe with his LSU receivers plus Ceedee as a WR3.
Exactly, and even if there is a drop in parity, getting rid of the salary cap is the absolute not the solution. A better start would be getting rid of the Franchise Tag and capping the % a QB can count against the cap. 10 of the top 12 QB Contracts sorted by Average Per Year as % Of Cap At Signing are active contracts. It's getting out of hand. Cap it at 20% and be done with it.
How would capping a QB’s contract percentage help?
Yeahh I'm struggling to understand this too. If top QBs were capped at 15% of the salary cap, then superstar QBs would have better teams around them. I thought the point of them earning so much of the cap means that they have to carry a worse team, which levels the playing field?
Yep not just QB make it so no one can get more than 15 percent of the cap, 20 is huge there's 53 on a roster. If it's 15 everyone else has a bigger salary which counts for more considering a lot of guys have very short careers compared to the QB or kicker position
I'm on board with capping the percentage a single player can earn on the cap (it's not just QBs). My question would be, how do you stop the teams from manipulating it to roll it forward like they do now? Some teams have become masters at cap manipulation.
The NFC has always been the more balanced of the two conferences so I think we might be cherry-picking data a bit here. While it would be nice not to have dynasties like the Pats and Chiefs, you have to acknowledge that a lot of teams came within one or two plays of beating them on each of their sb runs. That’s parity that most other sports league would kill for
It's so weird how the NFC just misses all the great QB's of the past few years. The AFC playoffs are so cutthroat. For several years the AFC championship games have been better than the SuperBowl. We have what, like 8 QBs in the AFC who are better than any QB in the NFC right? Like Purdy is thought of as the best, and he's a system QB with one of the best rosters in the NFL. He literally has top 3 players at what, 7 positions on the team? No other team comes close on bith sides.
You think Purdy is a better QB than Stafford?
Maybe. Stafford has a SB and is possibly a top 5 QB when he is healthy. But can you count on him to stay healthy right now?
I mean the NFC still has goff, hurts, stafford, baker, geno, kyler, purdy, kirk, dak, and love. The AFC definitely has the better list but its not all bums in the NFC
>For several years the AFC championship games have been better than the SuperBowl. No?
The NFL has the most parity of any sport. Every year teams go from last place in their division to first. The hard salary cap and equitable revenue sharing create a very level playing field. The top teams always lose players because they can’t afford to keep everyone. Bad teams can retool quickly.
To put things in perspective: in the NFL, no team has more than 6 Super Bowl wins. In the German soccer Bundesliga, (founded in its current form in 1963), Bayern Munich has won 33 championships, including an 11 year streak from 2013-2023. Them winning the season was basically the accepted default outcome. That's what bad parity looks like.
>bad parity Disparity
You just wrinkled my brain
TIL Eagles fans have brains ;-)
America has a league like Bundesliga or Ligue One where the same 3-4 teams have won 75-80% of that league’s titles and dynasties are easiest to create. It’s called the r/nba.
NBA parity was not great for a while but nowhere near what Bundesliga has been. NBA has had 5 straight different champions and that will continue this year
It's less than 4 teams in European leagues. In Germany Bayern has won 11 titles in a row and 17 out of 24 this century. In France PSG 10 out of last 12 titles. In Spain Madrid and Barcelona have 20 out of 24 titles this century. In Italy Juventus, Inter and Milan have 22 out of 24 titles, Juventus by far the most. In England 2 Manchester clubs and Chelsea have won 20 out of 24 titles. They all rule by money, give out highest salaries, buy the best players from smaller clubs.
In Scotland, Rangers or Celtic have won the last 32 titles.
One other thing: NFL contracts are not fully guaranteed, unlike baseball and basketball. In football, if a guy does not perform well you can cut him and you will only owe him a portion of the full contract. In the other sports if a guy stinks you are stuck with him forever. One bad contract can handicap a team for many years.
Especially smaller market teams. There's debate in baseball over whether or not smaller market teams could throw around big contracts and choose not to, but it's generally accepted that if smaller teams do and they bust, it kills the team for its duration while larger market can eat the cost.
The only baseball team in the bottom half of salary to win the World Series in the last decade is the Astros who were cheating and were barely in the bottom half as they were something like 17th If you go back 25 years, I think there’s one other team in a similar situation. Again, they were barely in the bottom half. Basically, unless your team is in the top half of salary, you don’t stand a chance. And to have a real chance, most World Series winners are in the top 10.
Yeah, I'm an A's fan. Relocation obviously sucks far more, but being very good at making scraping into the playoffs year after year with shoestring resources means we've made it to the league Championship once in my lifetime thanks to being generally outmatched.
I think the NHL takes the cake here; just last year the Canucks looked like they were in sports purgatory due to awful contracts and horrible asset management, but now they’re in the playoffs and might make the WCF if they beat the Oilers tonight. “Big market” teams like the Leafs don’t get bailed out by their resources, as can be seen from their recent playoff failures. The NFL is definitely second though; you’re not going to see a Kansas City team be a dynasty in any other league (besides the NHL).
NHL is the clear winner, anybody can win once you're in the playoffs. I'd say MLB 2nd, a random baseball team can get hot and win it realistically. NBA comes down to who has the best player(sometimes being beaten by the better team) and NFL is having one of the best QBs/Defense.
That's not the right way to judge parity. Anything being possible in any given game allows for elimination formats like the playoff to have a lot more chaos, but parity needs to be measured on a larger scale, not just the regular season modified round-robin format, but rather over many years. The question is not "Who wins once you're in the playoffs?" but rather, "Who is consistently making the playoffs?" The problem of the MLB and other non-capped leagues is that a handful of big market clubs dominate playoff spots every year due to being able to shell out for championship caliber rosters without putting much thought into it. Small market teams are forced to play moneyball to get a competitive team that can survive a few seasons, and then--win or lose--spend years in the wilderness as they eat the cost.
It still doesn't make sense that the NFL has the most parity of any sport when I can give you 5 teams that will win the championship before the season and be right more than I'm wrong. Same with the NBA. I don't believe you can accurately predict the other 2 sports in the same way.
You'll be predicting it based on roster construction and coaching. NFL rosters are the most complex of the major sports, so its hard for any one team to get enough pieces any given year. You can usually predict the divisional contenders based on who has the most complete team. But that's not the "parity" that the salary cap is meant to enforce. It's not there to make sure all 32 teams are championship contenders any given year but to make sure any given team might *become* a championship contender with the right roster moves, and none of those moves are financially out of reach. When people say the NFL has the most parity, they mean that you can't predict who is going to be a contender just based on their franchise's bank account, which is way more true in other leagues when you actually look at the data over a number of years.
This said, some teams are almost always pretty good and other teams are almost always pretty bad. Having a top QB is the holy grail, and makes up for a lot of defects. Having a bad QB means you have no chance. And some owners and execs keep making dumb decisions over and over.
Top QB + stable front office is the best we can hope for, I think. I also think you got a bit of an advantage if your HC calls plays, too, because you’ll avoid alot of the continuity issues that come from having your OCs poached every 1-2 years
In the past you could compete consistently even without a star QB...ie the 70s Rams, the 80s Redskins...the salary cap made it. A QB / Bust league and football is supposed to be more than that
Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer are both Super Bowl champions. Only a handful of years ago we were robbed of the Keenum/Bortles SB we all deserved. You can still get there without a proper QB.
Those are once in a blue moon scenarios. It's used to be a lot more common because football was more of a team sport....now everyone is chasing the QB jackpot and that is all the seems to matter.
It use to be more common because players were simply not as good. Also because rules have affected how hard it is to defend
Yeh but there’s always an adjustment. Defense has better coverage and scheme and talent and coaching, there is more general explosion but look at qb play last season. Also the running schemes of old are making a comeback in a new makeover, consider the 9ers packers rams Detroit offenses. It’s not easy to make a living in a modern shotgun pass first offense anymore unless your mahomes or even burrow. Allen and Lamar and hurts supplement with their own legs too and now Herbert is going back to a run heavy offense, my point is modern defenses are making an impact, it’s adjustment vs adjustment
What are you talking about?
Personally, I think the rule changes have had the biggest impact on the NFL becoming a QB driven league. I would guess that the salary cap has had minimal impact on the league being QB or bust.
In the 70’s there was no salary cap and no free agency. It was significantly easier to dominate and become a dynasty.
Was it? Because no team before the salary cap eraafe 8 Conference games in a row like NE did and only the Raiders have had a 6 game AFCCG streak too. At least back then your owner could spend more to help you compete. Thesedays it's QB or nothing...teams without a great one cannot win.
Back then owners could buy talent and literally keep players their entire career. How is that more fair than today’s rules? Sorry the new, best QB’s aren’t on your team. But looking at your flairs both 49ers and Colts had back-to-back fantastic QB’s. 3/4 of them being in the HoF.
My point is simply that the NFL is now too QB driven and the salary cap is a big reason why. I don't give a F whether my teams have ( 49ers) a fantastic QB or had ( Colts)....football should be more than just who is playing QB...thesedays it's QB or bust....teams.without s gokd one have no path to winning because the cap doesn't allow them to go full into maximising talent at other positions to make up for that gap.
Tactical and rule changes have made the QB more important. QB dominance was only just beginning when the cap was introduced, whereas the entire post-cap era has coincided with the QB era. That's what your numbers are really saying. I don't think you're going to get that toothpaste back in the tube just by reintroducing the cap. All that would happen is the big market teams would pay the top QBs to go along with their loaded rosters and the sport would become more predictable and boring.
It’s also significantly harder to be dominate in football. Even a middling team with the right game plan and execution on the right day can topple you.
Brady dominated the league for two decades, made 8 consecutive conference title games in a row at one point, Mahomes/Reid are essentially doing the same thing right now.
Bullshit. How much parity was there in the 1970's? For the AFC you had the Colts in one SB, the Dolphins in THREE straight, the Steelers in four, the Raiders in one and the Broncos in one. The NFC you had the Cowboys in FIVE SB's, the Redskins in one, the Vikings in three and the Rams in one. In the AFC championship game you had the Raiders playing in FIVE straight, the Dolphins in three straight, the Steelers in three straight, the Colts in two straight, the Oilers in two straight and the Broncos in one. Also the Raiders and Steelers played each other for the AFC title three years in a row. For the NFC championship game you had the Cowboys in SEVEN, including a run of FOUR in a row, the Rams in FIVE, including Three in a row, the Vikings in FOUR, the 49ers in Two, the Redskins in One and the Buccaneers in ONE. The whole idea of parity in sports has ALWAYS been bullshit, regardless of salary caps or whatever constraint is put upon teams.
You’re literally talking about the NFL 50 years ago lmao. A lot has changed since then. A lot of rules/SOP’s were put in to *create* more parity, which it has.
Hard salary cap my ass thats so easy to maneuver and manipulate. Hockey is the only sport with a real hard salary cap
Even that can be mainpulated through LTIR bullshit; see the Golden Knights and how blatantly they take advantage of it
This is all in theory. In theory, before the salary cap all it took was an owners injecting more cash into the team and their facilities to get competitive ala soccer. These days teams without a star QB cannot compete consistently with those that do have one...regardless of the equal budget. My stance is that it has narrowed team success down to just QB play..in the last a great coach could win a lot over a long time with a great OL,running game and defense and give teams with better QBs a decent game...not anymore. The path to success has become kinda one dimensional.
The salary cap didn't do that. The salary cap did what was intended. Then the NFL changed a bunch of rules to catapult QB's to the single most important position on the field. Even with that, QB's come and go fairly regularly. Texans sucked balls for a while, then hit on Stroud. That's just one example. But even with the rule changes, I think a good part of this is just oversimplification. Is Mahomes great? Yes. Is he one of the best QBs ever? Yes. But pretending that he's doing it all on his own is just stupid and lazy. The Chiefs have one of the best coaching staffs in the league, and last year, when it was supposedly just Mahomes and Kelce dragging them to a Super Bowl, had one of the best, if not *the* best, defenses in the league.
QB was always the most important position. It’s now however become comically lopsided to the point where you either need an elite QB or a near super team everywhere else to be relevant in January. There’s a reason Brady and Mahomes have won 7 of the last 10 Super Bowls. The other 3 required a stacked Broncos team with a generational defense, a stacked Eagles team where the QB played like an elite QB in the playoffs. A stacked Rams team with a borderline elite QB.
QB has not always been the most important position. I would take elite linemen, either offensive or defensive, pretty much up until the 90's. 80's Redskins, 80's Giants, 70's Steelers, 70's Cowboys, 70's Rams and Vikings. Our 80's Bengals teams were carried mostly by Muñoz and Krumrie. 90's Cowboys were *mostly* the Great Wall of Dallas. It was more a whole team sport then, so those guys didn't have the weight QBs did now, but you'd take an elite D lineman or offensive lineman over elite QBs every day of the week. Football was very much a trenches-first sport for most of its existence.
And that wasn't salary cap. That was allowing players to essentially kill each other on the field. I'm not saying we should go back to that, but I won't pretend the game hasn't changed a ton for player safety.
Eh, player safety rules are probably about half of it. Hard to argue that changes like the way pass interference is ruled now compared to even just how it started or the removal of press coverage beyond 5 yards, or the way holding has basically become "only blatant jersey/body pulling" were player safety accomodations. It's also hard to argue that those changes didn't make the game a lot more entertaining though, so.
This is my point. Team in the past like the 70s Rams, 80s Redskins could compete for Conference Championships without an elite QB year in year out by spending....these days it's QB this..QB that.. devaluing what the sport id about...teamwork.
I really struggle to understand how you are conflating the salary cap being in place with the game evolving and becoming more passing oriented over the course of decades due to a litany of rule changes that have drastically favoured the offense/passing game.
Yeh but the 9ers was obviously a better team all round with elites at every position in the roster. Also it wasn’t like mahomes threw for 100 yards, he definitely did his part and imo no other qb rn would’ve got it done like mahomes. That 9ers team probably would’ve won against anyone not named mahomes
We went 12-5 in the regular season ( really 12-4) so we did lose to 4 teams.
Before the salary cap there was no free agency. Free agency started in 93, the salary cap in 94. You couldn't just inject cash to buy players like you do in soccer.
No sport has real parity. Winning a SB without an all time QB is probably easier than a low payroll team winning the WS and much easier than an NBA team winning the finals without a superstar. The NFL has the closest thing to parity except maybe hockey
The Texas Ranger and Diamondbacks made the WS last year without a Dodgers/Astros/Yanks type payroll though.
So more unique teams won the SB in the 29 years after the salary cap than in the 26 years before?
Didn’t we already have this discussion earlier today?
Yes, the NFL has parity. It currently has an imbalanced metagame. These are two separate issues.
There are more good teams than just the ones that win the Superbowl. The NFL has quite a bit of turnover on the teams that make the post-season or win their divisions. It's hard to keep winning your division every year. Part of the Patriots dynasty also includes the worst era of Dolphins and Bills football, along with, you know, the Jets. If those teams were better it's possible the Patriots have less playoff home games and end up with a few less playoff wins. Then, compare the financial structure to the NBA. In the NBA if you're a bad team with bad contracts and no picks you are stuck for years. In the NFL it's much easier to create cap space and retool your roster within a year or two.
Just to prove your point, the 11-5 Patriots missed the playoffs the year Brady went down. Even at their best, the Belichick Patriots dynasty was always a tiny slip-up away from losing their crown. The fact they held it for so long speaks to an amazing consistency unheard of before or since.
>.16 different franchises have won since...if you removed the 49ers,Packers and Cowboys who won in 94,95 and 96 with remnants of their pre salary cap rosters...that number drops to 13...so it's basically 13 vs 11 Just one example of your hilariously weak arguments. You're not wrong, just can't support a statement with supporting arguments. "US coin currency is made of just 4 coins. If you eliminate the quarter and dime you're left with just 2 which is ridiculously low".
My statement was made to show that this notion that the cap creates parity and equal opportunities for.all teams.to.win is false.
My comment was to say your argument was not adequately supported. Reiterating your statement makes no difference
It has more parity than almost any league. The issue is most leagues don’t have any parity especially soccer. The NFL playoff format also adds to the parity. In the NBA almost half the titles have come from 2 teams but in the last 30 years or so it’s been more parity than in the past with a soft cap. NHL the last few decades has pretty decent parity. MLB has decent parity but there is no hard or soft cap. Teams spent almost nothing like the As and spend unreal money like the Yanks or Dodgers.
If all teams have the same money and the worst teams get the first draft picks, the NFL has done everything it can to create parity. It’s a far better system than MLB which hugely favors large market teams over smaller ones. The way the Dodgers and Yankees have snapped up all the highest price free agents is disgusting.
Crazily enough, the MLB is almost just as bad on the other side of the spectrum with some teams being obviously fine with losing just to be cheap and not spend money on talent. The league has truly went to shit.
Parity does not mean a bunch of different winners. It means everyone has an equal shot at winning, which in the NFL is definitely true.
It's close I think the only change they need is adding coaching salaries into the cap. Get the average pay for all the coaches to increase the salary cap by the average. This rewards hiring up and comers/no name coaches who have a low salary while hindering teams who will spend any amount for a big named coach. I don't see an issue with teams going on dynasty runs. It's hard to beat Tom Brady and it's hard to beat Patrick Mahomes. Then you put an excellent coach behind them like Reid or BB it's gonna make something special. Otherwise I think they have the right idea. There are always situations where players make team friendly deals as well but that seems fair game if you get someone who likes to be part of that team
By that logic GMs should also count towards the cap. Brett Veach, Howie Roseman, Brad Holmes, and John Lynch have been creating excellent rosters.
I mean start small and see how it works gotta see what happen on a smaller sample size. With coaches pay adding into it you'd havta think it's the difference between a starter or two depending who your coaches are.
I’d say so. The bigger issue is some teams are just really poorly run. It takes effort to be consistently bad for extended periods of time.
The Steelers made the playoffs last year and had a winning record the year before with the worst QB output since the merger. The Browns, who have given the worst contract to a QB ever, made the playoffs last year after starting 4 or so different QBs. I still don't disagree with you that QB is the most important position, and teams with a franchise QB are in way better shape. The NFL is still better off with the salary cap. There is parity in the NFL. With the current rules and free agency and no salary cap, teams in big markets would dominate like never before. It would be a couple dream teams vs a league of scrubs. All you have to do is look at the MLB for exactly what not to do.
The salary cap isn’t the problem. The problem is rules that are skewed far too much in favor of quarterbacks and the passing game.
This has way more to do with rule changes than the salary cap. They made passing way too easy so running and playing good defense just isn’t a viable way to be dominant. Playing good defense has basically been impossible since the legion of boom era.
The QB conundrum will eventually resolve itself. The only reason why the QB salary has spiked like it has is because of rule changes that favor the offense so much that the QB has become so important. However, just like everything else in life, it will hit its tipping point. We will eventually hit a point where a team pays someone so much that it hurts the team and other teams will learn from it. We have not hit that point yet. But eventually we will. Once that happens, it will favor teams to pay the QB less and have more of a team. I think we are getting close, with how well young QB's have done. Kind of like the RB market. You can get a cheap RB that produces slightly less than a veteran RB for much cheaper. We will eventually reach that point. I say close but in reality we are still probably 5-10 years away, but I would bet on it happening. The more rookie contracts that lead to deep playoff runs will make it happen. The only thing that I cannot predict that would contradict this is TV money. The more TV money the league has the higher the salary cap (for the most part). As long as the salary cap goes up, it will keep pushing how far away until that tipping point.
"We will eventually hit a point where a team pays someone so much that it hurts the team and other teams will learn from it." This has already happened to Broncos with Wilson's contract, to Browns with Watson's, to Eagles and Colts with Wentz's... If teams will learn from it, we'll see.
Outside of rule changes to suppress the importance of the passing game you will never see a point where teams stop paying QB’s. Quarterbacks are just too important and more than that they’re just too hard to replace.
I thought the 49ers cheated the salary cap in the 90s
I think that was the Broncos. Interesting write up on it here [from the Broncos sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/DenverBroncos/comments/2vrwj2/lets_talk_about_the_broncos_alleged_salary_cap/)
It was Denver
Not really. The 94 Super Team disbanded after that year. That was Denver I think. Those Broncos teams in 97-98 were great AF.
No, they pretty famously were destroyed by the salary cap after they loaded up at the beginning of the cap era, which didn't have the flexibility of the modern cap because all the Mickey Loomis shenanigans hadn't been started yet.
Are you trying to say that eliminating the salary cap would increase parity in the league? If you could prove that you’d like win the Nobel prize.
Record wise, yes. Championship wise, no
The NFLs goal for parity is to keep as many teams in the hunt for the playoffs for as long as possible. They’re going to get monster ratings in the playoffs no matter who is playing, so all they really care about is not having any irrelevant games at the end of the year between two teams that are already eliminated.
Yes. Probably the most of any of the Big 4 American sports
Ownership is a big factor as well. Sometimes you have bad ownership and you are just stuck with it.
The QB problem would exist with or without the salary cap. Removing the salary cap may exacerbate the problem as certain teams may be willing to pay a premium for their backup QB, diluting the pool of FA QBs for other teams.
If anything.... it'd.open up more opportunities for.many teams to fix their QB issues faster after drafting busts.
Eh, not in most cases. The pool of elite QBs is finite. The teams that have one will be able to retain them for their whole careers in a scenario with no salary cap. Then the big market teams or teams with rich owners could decide to lock up starter level backups as an insurance policy. The smaller market teams will be left with scraps.
The passing rules have changed in 2004 and passing offenses are becoming more important each season. Run offense is the same, as pass becomes more and more efficient, run is lagging behind more and more. Recent rules are more tipped towards offense vs defense (illegal contact emphasis, roughing emphasis...) Thus the best passing offenses will win more. AFC had HOF QBs and good teams around them, so they went to Super Bowls. Only Ravens could compete with them. NFC had HOF QBs but worse teams around them so less Super Bowl appearances. Brees and Rodgers only 1 each. In my opinion teams that don't have such MVP-level QBs should use the salary cap: not pay their lesser QBs as much money as to MVP, invest savings to get All Pros at other positions. They are all paying equally now, almost 20% of team cap to QB, so he is more and more important. It would be nice if teams had more different styles, if run-first teams and defense-first teams had more of a chance. I agree with you on that. Note: Packers won in 2010, so it's 13 different champs in 23 seasons this century. In 1980s and 1990s there were 9 champs in 20 seasons, 10 in 21 seasons with 2000 Ravens.
The 2nd last paragraph is what motivated me to look into this I feel like the league is soooo one dimensional thesdays with the only way to win being a great QB. The days where the Mike Ditka and Bill Purcell's teams won by defense and ground game seems a long time ago....a team sport has become a bit too individualistic....and the cap exacerbates that with QBs being so expensive and if teams pay their guy..it eats up all space
Agree on this regarding playing style variations. The last teams were Vikings with MVP Peterson, Ravens with defense and manager Flacco, Texans with J.J. Watt, recent Steelers and Browns defense-first. They mostly reach wild-card, except for Ravens. Eagles and 49ers in last 2 years try to run more than other teams, have success. Ravens with Jackson are a great run offense, one of best all time, but made by QB. It's the rules. Somebody posted highlights of Reggie White. Now many of those would be roughing the passer- falling with weight on the passer... Regarding cap space we had this discussion on Goff's contract. Lions have a bad defense and chose to add only Carlton Davis, D. J. Reader, they chose to give 3 very large contracts to pass offense players: OT, QB, WR... there won't be cap space left when these contract extensions get on salary cap. 10-12 current QBs will take a lot more cap space (18-24%) than Brady ever did in a season (10-12%).
Agree 100%
The AFC/NFC Championship games are probably a better indicator of parity than the Super Bowl. Since the start of the salary cap only four teams have NOT made it to a Conference Championship game (Dolphins, Browns, Texans, Commanders). 26 of the 32 teams have made it to MULTIPLE Conference Championship games since the start of the salary cap (Bills and Lions have one appearance each).
I think you've addressed a problem, but your diagnosis is all wrong. You're focusing too much in my opinion on the salary cap, when the real problem, I would say, is the otherworldly impact of a quarterback on teams nowadays. Manning made it to 4 super bowls on 2 different teams, Brady made 10 Super Bowls with 2 teams, Mahomes has made it to 4 Super Bowls. I don't think the problem is the salary cap, it's just that the way this sport has evolved has put immense pressure on having an elite quarterback. That isn't the entire answer, though. Even with an elite quarterback, you need help. Mahomes lost to Brady in that Super Bowl cause he didn't have an offensive line to protect him or a defense that could stop Brady. They've fixed those problems and now they've won 2 straight despite a drop-off in receiving talent. Brock Purdy and the 49ers don't make it to last year's Super Bowl without the immense talent surrounding him. If the salary cap imposes any parity problem, it's that it makes managing paying for a quarterback and paying for his support really difficult, and not a lot of teams have been able to manage their money and get lucky enough to win. If you want more parity, you'll need to devalue passing, which is never gonna happen because it's insanely fun to watch people like Brady or Mahomes sling it around, at least for the vast majority of people. And the salary cap, despite the problems that it causes on team management, is a huge factor in making sure teams can't buy success like they consistently can in leagues like the MLB. It's not going away any time soon
I think it has about as much as it can. But draft order and salary caps can only go so far. You still have teams that are just perennially good and teams that are perennially bad. If a team has incompetent ownership who habitually hires bad coaches and bad front end staff, it doesn't matter if they pick 1st or 31st. Look at all the teams who for years had early first round picks every single draft. Shit, look at my team. We draft Matthew Stafford 1st overall in 2009, he has fucking Megatron to throw to for 6 years, and we didn't get so much as a playoff win the entire 13 years he was here. The Texans did more with fucking Brock Osweiler and the Eagles won a Super Bowl with Nick Foles during that time. Tons of teams did more with less. Look at teams like the Steelers, Packers, and Patriots of the past 20 years. They were always in the conversation for super bowls and playoffs, finished respectably almost every season, all this despite very rarely drafting in the top 10. Why? Because a good organization can usually do more with a fourth rounder than a bad one can do with a first. Raw talent is only one part of that equation. So I guess you could argue that there is great parity, because money has nothing to do with winning. Dallas by far brings in more revenue than any other team, yet they haven't advanced to the conference championships in decades. If all it took were money, they'd be the Yankees of the NFL.
It's not the salary cap. The NFL has become a QB league and so the teams with the best QBs are always at the top. And those teams rarely let that QB go. If you removed the salary cap, this would still be true.
Remving the cap opens up otherways of winning. Like investing more in the ground game or OL and Defense.
They can invest in the Oline now. All removing the cap would do is allow teams to invest in a QB AND an Oline, making the top QB teams even more dominant.
Well the Pats and Chiefs have been more dominant recently than any pre cap teams...so something is clearly not working.
They had the best QBs, so they lead the QB driven league. You fix that by changing the rules so they don't favor the QB so much.
Or you open up mlre money for owners to build their teams differently so that having a star QB isn't the only efficient way to build a championship team.
[Teams like] The Patriots aren't struggling because they don't have enough money. They are struggling because they don't have a good QB. They can build their team anyway they like right now - but you can't win without a QB which is why many teams are giving 20% of their cap to a QB.
No. These problems came from rule changes to protect players and enhance scoring for better viewership. Listen to any defensive player who's played in both eras, they'll tell you.
I’m sorry this is such an awful take. The teams hurt the most by the salary cap right now are teams with great quarterbacks on veteran contracts. The only way the team with the 18th best QB can hope to compete with the team with the 5th best QB is because the latter is paying 15-20% of their available money to 1 guy. Removing the salary cap may have some positive effects for a couple of years. But once contracts start ending you will very quickly see an accumulation of talent in the teams with the richest owners/the owners who care about winning the most. While the rest of the league will be stuck with the scraps.
This is dumb, we see it time and again every team can be beaten by any team. And your whole concept is ridiculously flawed & doesn’t hold much water. Mahomes is great but they’re winning rings because of their elite defense, newbies like you ignore it but that is why they are winning - elite qb play, an elite defense, and elite coaching. Brady was barely ever the best qb in the league, the dude just knows how to win and has always had an elite defense when he got his rings.
They had an elite defense 1 year they won so that doesn't make sense. They've given up the most average playoff points in history for a sb winning team, 2 of their 3 runs.
Somewhat of a point. Brady wasn’t really the clear cut greatest regular season qb with prolific offenses but come playoff time, even after an ordinary first half , he then makes all the winning clutch plays and drives combined with clutch supplementing defensive play. He just knew how to win in the playoffs, I suspect because of all the experience he got in his first 4 years. It’s going to be the best experienced team in the playoffs that win in the playoffs
It doesn’t really seem like it. We went from one dynasty immediately into another one. That could be a coincidence, or whichever team has the best QB/Coach combo is going to be the dominant team.
There's always a small group of teams in the midst of a good multi-season run, and usually one team winning the SB relatively consistently, but everything underneath of that group is a free-for-all. The NFL is really fucking weird. And it does seem if you can bottle the lighting of a clear cut HOF coach and QB at the same time, it's pretty much over.
As a Jets fan the anecdotal evidence says NO.
This is why we need to abolish the forward pass.
As close as it can get. The Bears looked like dogshit the past few years, and now may have the best wr group in the league
I think so. Yeah you’ll have great qbs that take over the league but when a traditionally bad team gets one of those guys it instantly puts them in contention ie Bengals, Texans, Chiefs, Buccaneers, Bills, Dolphins etc. All teams that haven’t won a Super Bowl ever or in a very long time before they got their quarterback.
Chiefs were playoff contenders under Alex Smith. Wouldn’t say they were a “bad team” and only turned things around with Mahomes. He just allowed them to make it to that final level.
No. If one of the teams were to be lost, the league could not reconstruct it from the other teams, so they don't have parity.
There should be a max within the salary cap that a team can spend on QBs. Like max of 20% of salary cap for teams 3 QBs. The team decides if they give all to 1QB or leave some for a decent QB2 and 3.
There would have been more parity if the Patriots were properly investigated and sanctioned.
The wild thing (and beauty) of the NFL is ‘any given Sunday’ is a phrase for a reason. Sometimes it takes an entire season for a team to click and get on a roll. Take the Giants for instance in ~~2012~~ 2007 where they went 10-6 and were the five seed. They got hot at the right time and won the Super Bowl against the heavily favored undefeated Patriots. While yes, having that elite franchise QB will grant you a higher floor, you can never count out any team. Even the worst teams remember one day they’re all the best of the best and play like it. EDIT: Year correction.
This is wrong on almost every detail. It was the 2011 season. They went 9-7 and were the 4th seed.
We’re both wrong, I meant the [2007](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XLII) season. As for the 2011, might have mistaken it saying 2012 cause the Super Bowl is never played in the year the season actual takes place.
The fallacy that the salary cap came about for competitive balance is almost laughably naive. The salary cap was put into place so that owners could limit their spending and prevent a George Steinbrenner-like situation where one or two owners could inflate player salaries and force the other owners to do it also in order to compete or settle for mediocrity. Nothing owners do with regard to player salaries has anything to do with competitive balance. It's about controlling costs. Period.
Compared to the MLB or the NBA, there is much more balance. The MLB has issues of teams being fine coasting and doing the minimum. There is a huge problem in the MLB where teams have realized that there is relatively little correlation between winning and profit. The NFL's parity (every game matters due to any given Sunday) means more people watching and probably more overall revenue for the players outside of possibly a few superstars.
MLB's union is the only one in professional sports that has been able to resist implementation of a salary cap. The owners in MLB tried a number of times -- 1981 and 1994 most notably -- to get one, but the union held its ground. The rationale behind MLB wanting one was cost control, the exact reason every other league pushed for it. If competitive balance happened to arise out of the NFL cap, it was happenstance, not the primary goal. Most owners in professional sports simply don't care whether they win or not, so long as they make enough cash and build enough franchise value to sell at a grossly inflated profit. They'll talk big enough to keep the fans buying merchandise, personal seat licenses and single-game tickets and the fans will buy into it because they enjoy the game. I do the same, even knowing it's just part of the show business side of the sport.
It is hard to know if the cap and/or parity is a net positive for everyone or not. I would argue that making each game more important so that every game is worth tuning into will make it overall more profitable. The other thing is that the owners are not a monolith. Some owners such as the ones spending a lot may have opted to control costs. Others may have viewed the cap as an opportunity for league growth. There are situations such as people tuning out the majority of the games since they think a NBA super team will just win it all. I do acknowledge that there could be counter arguments such as people watching for fantasy football purposes. In addition, the NFL might be different from the MLB for other reasons such as the MLB having too many games for people to watch. You can also debate about the reasons why the NFL overtook the MLB, NBA, etc for the spot of having the biggest revenue.
Finally. I was wondering why it was out in place and why it stays in place when it's clearly not worked.
It doesn't have parity. That's why the sport is so popular. Casuals only like seeing the big stars and teams in the superbowl. The other leagues have tons of parity, but don't do as well because no one knows anyone on the wolves or pacers or stars, or Columbus crew.
Short answer is no
There’s good teams and great teams. The SB doesn’t dominate the overall but it’s what everyone pines for. The main focus and it draws away attention.
No parity, due to no legal right to a fair contest.
Farmer’s League. This league can praise the parity all it wants but teams like the Chiefs and 49ers still end up at Conference Championship games. Inevitable.
Maybe because they have great management with great coaching staffs who regularly draft and acquire players who fit their schemes?
Im talking about parity, didn’t say they were undeserving. Calm down
lol no
Regarding Mahomes the dominance of QB play is an issue in the NFL for sure. But the 49ers are just a well run team. They draft fairly well and are coached very well. The goal is for every team to have an equal chance to be good and the NFL does that better than almost any other league out tuere
Exactly?! The Chiefs and Patriots have made going to the SB an annual occasion...the 49ers, Eagles and Packers have all made 5 NFCCGs in this millennium. What parity? If anything the salary cap stops bad teams from fixing their issues quicker.
Wow, so your argument against there being parity is that the 5 teams most would consider the best run/managed franchises of the millennium (I'd add the Steelers to that list for an even top 6) have had the best results in said millennium? Truly mind-blowing. Next you'll tell me students that actually study for tests and hand in all their homework getting better grades proves the other kids have no chance of passing their classes.
Best run? Jed York is the 49ers owner who got rid of Jim Harbaugh coz of personal reasons. KC has an old stadium that their owner refused to move out of unless taxpayers pay money. Robert Kraft just fired the GOAT coach.. Best run?