This was touched on in another thread. When comparing baseball and football it is amazing the difference between the way the two sports deals with their players. The NFL has 1) No guaranteed contacts, 2) a salary cap, 3) a harsh drug policy were a diet supplement can cost you several games or a season. Baseball has 1) guys making millions off fat contracts even when they can no longer play, 2) a "luxury tax" system that only affects one team (and not much to them), 3) can't even impose a ban on steroids. The difference between the two of course is the fact the NFL owners were able to break the players union, and they basically have no teeth. There are several thing baseball could use to improve the game that the players union has successfully blocked.

Now, the question to me is has the salary cap truly improved football? I can think back 15 years ago and the dynasties that dominated the sports, and then look at the current parity between the teams and say there is an improvement. There are legitimately 28-30 teams that have a true shot at the playoffs, and a good 18-20 that could make the Superbowl. Every year, there are several teams that come from nowhere to make a playoff run, even winning their division. I think most feel that is a good thing.

BUT, has the quality of the game suffered? Most teams have a razor-thin depth. The salary cap prevents any teams from stacking their depth chart ala the Yankees, but it also cost many veterans their career long before their usefulness is over. Also because of the cap, teams have high turnover rates that degrade team unity and cohesion. Jim had the right idea when he added that little stat to his games. Cohesion on a football team makes a big difference. There is no cohesion in the NFL any more. If you can keep players together for two years your lucky, and even then they are likely to have completely revamped backups.

Anyway, a bit of rambling from a small mind. I know we have had this discussion before, but feel free to voice your opinions again.

I think the salary cap and other NFL rules to keep things more even between teams has definitely made things more interesting. Dynasties are really only much fun when you are a fan of that team; its much better to see different teams get a shot at the title. I look at it like this; Detroit has two pathetic sports franchises, the Lions and Tigers. While the Lions most likely will not make the playoffs this year, or win more than six or seven games, teams can turn things around so well in a couple seasons that there is always hope. Look at the Tigers; tell me where the hope comes from in that franchise, where there hasn't been a winning record in ten years, and no hope for one for another four? There are numerous examples of this in baseball; anybody who believes there are truly more than three or four teams capable of winning the World Series this year is kidding themselves. Yes, you may have a one-year wonder doing well, like the Twins last year or the Royals this year, but for the most part, year in, year out, its the same teams, and that makes it boring as hell.

As for players not having guaranteed contracts, well, I don't know too many people in the real world who have one either; if you don't perform, you don't get paid. Nothing wrong with that. Veterans having their careers end a couple years early sucks for them but, they have probably made enough money that they will never have to work again, so I'm not really too worried about that either.

the salary cap has been a miracle. there will still be bad teams and there will still be good teams, but the parity insures that those teams could flip flop in a matter of one off-season. i hate the way baseball handles things

In the NFL, vetran players could keep their jobs if they were allowed to accept the same amount that younger players were playing for. That is one tweak I would like to see with the salary cap. As far as Baseball goes, I gave up that boring crybaby game in 94. Never watched a single game since.....strike on me....no,no MLB.....strike on you!

Originally posted by IMetTrentGreen
the salary cap has been a miracle. there will still be bad teams and there will still be good teams, but the parity insures that those teams could flip flop in a matter of one off-season. i hate the way baseball handles things

I agree. I would add that even fans of dynasties do become jaded and worn out with high expectations. I followed the NFL fanatically throughout most of the 1970s and the regular teams in the NFC playoffs were the same year after year. The 80s saw more of the unexpected and parity set in with the rise of the Niners but more importantly, you had the Bears, Redskins and Giants competing at the same level. Since then, we have little idea of predictable outcomes and to me, that is very exciting as a fan. Parity had gotten a bad rap because it meant everyone being at .500. But that's not true, the bell curve had not changed that much since 1970, just where team A can be on that curve from one season to the next.

Originally posted by Hyde
In the NFL, vetran players could keep their jobs if they were allowed to accept the same amount that younger players were playing for. That is one tweak I would like to see with the salary cap. As far as Baseball goes, I gave up that boring crybaby game in 94. Never watched a single game since.....strike on me....no,no MLB.....strike on you!

Don't the NFL's current rules allow a veteran player who makes only the minimum for his experience count only as much as a rookie against the cap? I think in practice, this accomplishes what you're suggesting already.

Yes, I think the cap has been a lifesaver.


And on the issue of cohesion, I believe teams are getting better at managing the cap and keeping their players together. The Steelers, for instance, have the core of their team locked up for the next 2-3 years with very few exceptions. Many teams are now finding ways to do this.

The only change I'd like to see made is what I call the "loyal veteran rule". Every team can invoke this rule with only one player at a time - sort of like the "franchise player".

Here's the rule:

Requirements:

It only applies to one player and will apply for the duration of their contract.

They cannot be traded. They can be cut.

The player must have at least 8 years' tenure with that team.

Rule:

This players' salary will count only 1/2 toward the salary cap. So if they make 1.5 Million in salary cap dollars, it will only count $750,000 in true cap dollars. This allows the team to keep a player they may not have kept due to cap restraints. I'm not sure it'd get used much, but it might help keep somene like Marino on the Dolphins or Smith on the Cowboys.

People always overlook the key feature of the nfl salary structure. In the NFL, treams have a minimum payroll requirement. It is this min/max (although affected by the bonus system) structure, along with revenue sharing, that allows Pittsburgh to field an eqitable team to cities like New York or Chicago. The fact that some teams are perinially poor has more to do with bad management than lack of resources.

In this respect, I think the NFL is better than ever.

----

It is unfair to blame the lack of a dynasty on the cap. I think player movement is more a function of free agency than cap space.

I think that the NFL salary structure has the perfect balance. Currently you have to perform to get paid, which is the way its supposted to be. This is the reason why it retains its "blue collar status" among fans. Basketball is getting better with its salary cap, but still has some ways to go. Baseball , my favorite sport, has along way to go . In a way, the Owners today can thank the Owners of yesteryears (Ie. Charlie Finley) for totally screwing them over. Players in baseball used to get treated like complete shit, and now its payback time,.

There is give and take on the Salary Cap issue.

I generally agree with the cap (afterall, I'm a Bucs fan who endured the Culverhouse Years...)

But dynasties were cool. The 50's Lions, the 60's Packers, the 70's Dolphins and Steelers and Cowboys, the 80's Redskins and 49'ers.

And there was something special to say you could beat the 1967 Packers or the 1978 Cowboys or the 1983 Redskins. And it was a blessing to watch those teams finally crumble.

But when the won the Super Bowl, they were the Champs. They did the best that particular year and nobody could tell them otherwise.

Now that free agency and parity and salary caps have almost all but sealed the fate of the team. With the exception of the Bucs who have had a remarkable window of opportunity that has been open since 1997, most teams get one or two years before they are done. What good was it for the Baltimore Ravens fans to brag about their Super Bowl victory when all they would get in return was, "Well, enjoy it, because your done!"

Just playing the flip side of that coin, but all in all, I enjoy free agency and parity.

Fritz,

Great point. I think a lot of people forget that.

------------------------------------------------------------

As far as teams not being able to keep their core together, I think that it all relates to how well they manage the cap. Here in Denver, I can't think of a single instance where we lost a free agent guy the organization wanted to keep. Shannon Sharpe went to Baltimore because of a decision by the front office, nothing more.

Many teams are keeping their core players together as they learn to manage the cap. The great thing is that if they do make a two or three year run at a title and overspend, they aren't locked into being horrific teams for the next 25 years. (Bengals and Cardinals excluded) This is much different than basketball (where you are locked into a bad contract for nearly a decade) or baseball (where your draft picks take 2-4 years to develop and even then the draft can be more about who you can sign as opposed to who you want to draft).

I'll take the NFL system anyday of the week.

TroyF

Well, I really miss the days of dynasties, and identifying players with their teams. I *like* the consistency that disparity of resources brings about. As a baseball fan, I'm not interested in seeing the Braves take on the Rangers or the Royals in the World Series. Gimme the Dodgers in the NLCS, and the Yankees in the World Series, and give it to me every single season. In football, if the Falcons were to rise to power, I'd want to see them play the Cowboys in the first round, the Packers or Niners in the NFC Championship, and then the Steelers or Dolphins in the Super Bowl. Parity and player movement are the main things that keeps from being as big of an NFL fan as I used to be. About the only thing you can count on in the NFL these days is that the Bengals will stink.

Originally posted by SkyDog
Well, I really miss the days of dynasties, and identifying players with their teams. I *like* the consistency that disparity of resources brings about. As a baseball fan, I'm not interested in seeing the Braves take on the Rangers or the Royals in the World Series. Gimme the Dodgers in the NLCS, and the Yankees in the World Series, and give it to me every single season. In football, if the Falcons were to rise to power, I'd want to see them play the Cowboys in the first round, the Packers or Niners in the NFC Championship, and then the Steelers or Dolphins in the Super Bowl. Parity and player movement are the main things that keeps from being as big of an NFL fan as I used to be. About the only thing you can count on in the NFL these days is that the Bengals will stink.

yuk.

I can't believe a Braves fan of all people would forget one of the greatest World Series in the 100+ year history of baseball. The Twins vs. Braves. Purists of the Yankees, Dodgers, Cardinals probably hated two last place teams making it to the championship series. They turned in some of the best baseball I've seen in my lifetime.

I equate this to a movie. Do you like watching a movie where within the first 5 minutes you know what's going to happen at the end with near perfect accuracy? I don't. It ruins most of the movie for me. It's why as an Avalanche fan, I'm happy to see them get bounced in the first round (and was hoping Vancouver won the division)

To each their own. :)

TroyF

I agree with a lot of that, Troy. You don't see very many talented players leave their team in their prime. That is the definite exception to the rule. Most of the big-name players who move around are players over 30 who are looking for a combination of money and a chance to win a ring. The salary cap actually helps teams keep layers they want to through contract extensions -- it costs a player's current team less year-to-year cap space to sign an extension than it would another team to sign the player to a new contract. So hometown teams do have a slight advantage in keeping players they want to keep. When players do walk, it is usually the choice of the team, not just the player.

True, the cap does keep teams from stockpiling talent, but I think expansion is more to blame for razor-thin depth than the cap is.

I don't think the minimum cap has as much to do with keeping teams competitive. The Bengals and the Cardinals are usually the only teams that bounce around the bottom of the cap range. Even teams like the Steelers spend well over the minimum, because if they didn't they would go 2-14 ever year, wouldn't draw flies and lose money. Teams can still go nuts semi-Yankees-style in the NFL, like Dan Snyder, through outlandish bonuses, but the cap does help keep the gap more narrow.

That being said, the cap is only a small part of it. Revenue sharing is what makes the whole thing sing. Revenue sharing is what made the NFL what it was. Rozelle was a genius for proposing it and getting the owners to buy in.

I love the NFL system, but I'm not sure the amount of turnover would work for other sports. The NFL has the advantage of hiding the player's faces... I bet a casual fan wouldn't be able to recognize more than three or four of their team's players if they met them face to face. Add to this the fact that NFL rosters have so many more players than other sports and many less games to see the players and I think you really reduce the value of any individual while raising the value of the team in the eye's of fans. As long as the Colts keep Manning, Edge, and Harrison I'd guess the roster turnover will barely be noticed by 90% of the fans, even if half the team changes from year to year.

On the opposite spectrum you have basketball where there are only 5 guys starting and their faces are always on camera during games. I'd guess that roster turnover like the NFL's wouldn't go over nearly as well with the fans there.

If you are going to compare football's finances to baseball's, you have to start with where they get their revenues. In football, over half of it comes from the national broadcasting contracts with the networks. In baseball, most of it is generated locally. So the reason the NFL was able to break the union and get a salary cap is that the common interests of the owners is larger than the individual interests because of the revenue structure. That will probably never happen in baseball, because the individual economic interests of the owners are much bigger than the common interests.

FWIW, I don't think the salary cap does much of value at all in the NFL. There was parity before it came along; all it has done is prevent the really good organizations from keeping their teams together. But, as we have seen, these are the same organizations that rebuild very quickly after a short down time. I think it's bad for the fans of those teams that their star players often spend such a short time with the team before become a cap casualty.

I don't really see a lot of evidence that the competitive balance in the NFL is a whole lot better than it is in baseball. Even now, 3/4 of the way through the baseball season, there are still 18 teams out of 30 that are legitimately in contention for a playoff berth. There are a lot of small market teams that are figuring out how to compete in that environment. True, there are some perenially bad teams, like the Devil Rays, Pirates, Brewers, and Tigers. But the NFL has the Cardinals and Bengals.

Originally posted by TroyF
I equate this to a movie. Do you like watching a movie where within the first 5 minutes you know what's going to happen at the end with near perfect accuracy? I'm watching Rules Of Engagement right now. I've probably watched it 25 times in the year or so that I've owned it, and that is a conservative guess. :)

Originally posted by SkyDog
Well, I really miss the days of dynasties, and identifying players with their teams. I *like* the consistency that disparity of resources brings about. As a baseball fan, I'm not interested in seeing the Braves take on the Rangers or the Royals in the World Series. Gimme the Dodgers in the NLCS, and the Yankees in the World Series, and give it to me every single season. In football, if the Falcons were to rise to power, I'd want to see them play the Cowboys in the first round, the Packers or Niners in the NFC Championship, and then the Steelers or Dolphins in the Super Bowl. Parity and player movement are the main things that keeps from being as big of an NFL fan as I used to be. About the only thing you can count on in the NFL these days is that the Bengals will stink.

I really can't believe this, it is so inconsistent and full of holes. You don't want the Royals? I guess you don't consider the Royals dynasty of the late 70s/early 80s then? You want the Dodgers, the ones of the 90s? Oh, you must mean the ones of the 50s or the you mean the 70s (but not the Reds of the 70s)? Why would include the Braves anyway, they really stunk in the 70s and 80s. In the NFL, I didn't think you were old enough to remember the Packers dynasty of 60s. Is that what you were referring to? And by your rules, the Falcons can never rise to power because they never had a dynasty. Why are just picking certain teams out of context while ignoring others and why are you allowing your team to rise to power while not allowing any others?

Originally posted by Buccaneer
Why are just picking certain teams out of context while ignoring others and why are you allowing your team to rise to power while not allowing any others? Because I don't want to see the others rise to power. :) I never cheer for the underdog over the established dynasty, unless it is my team. Never.

Dola...and those were just examples.... You get the point.

Has the salary cap been good for football? Yes.

Does baseball need a cap? It needs a floor more than it needs a cap.

Do I think the NFL is better now than in 1990? No. In fact, I think it's worse. I really don't like the fact that teams can wobble so much from 6-10 records to 10-6 records and back. I don't like truly mediocre teams making the playoffs and am glad that they decided not to expand the playoff.

I don't think the average talent is as good as ten years ago. I should have the expectation that my team should beat teams x, y, and z every year and struggle with a, b, and c. Some weeks now, it's like watching NASCAR, they are all carbon copies of the same thing.

The Ravens are a very good example of why parity sux. They win the Super Bowl then collapse. At least the Bears teams of the 80's made a decent showing after they won the title. It's fun watching teams build and peak and try to stay. Certainly San Francisco fits that, they were just plain bad for many years.

Bad teams will remain bad, cap or no. Arizona and Detroit are bad.

If anybody has the right to be angry at the Yankees, it's me. I guarantee you that people would not be screaming about competitive imbalance if the best team of the 90's was the Chicago White Sox, or the California Angels. You can hate the Yankees because they are cocky, arrogant, conceited. But you have to respect them because they are smart. They plan better then anybody else. If money was the only root factor in winning, then the Dodgers and Mets would be in the playoffs every year.

Does baseball need to change? Yes, the game is badly in need of revenue sharing. Teams that actually give a shit about building a solid minor league system should be given every opportunity to keep their players. This does need to be fixed.

I never cheer for the underdog over the established dynasty, unless it is my team. Never.

thats fine, but i would imagine that you are in a very small minority, which is part of the reason football has skyrocketed past baseball

bud selig seems a lot like president bush to me. he often speaks of problems in black and white, and there is always only one way to fix things. often, those "fixes" only benefit hiself or the owners (in order to compete, [insert small market team] needs a new stadium. hey bud, ask the reds, tigers, and pirates fans how that worked out). he seems to not care about the fans, only about his richest players and his owners

he makes bad decisions (all-star game in '02), and decides to patch up problems with dumb, short term solutions (all-star game this year) instead of focusing on the root of the problem. screw him

You never cheer for the underdog in sports? Wow, I think thats the first time I ever heard that. Its definately your right to do so, but... wow. Do you also route for the bad guys in movies? Do you like seeing headlines saying "Massive Layoff's for small company X, because of new competition from comglomerate Y".

Not saying that those examples have anything to do with sports, but the same theme applies. How can you not root for the little guys?

Originally posted by vtbub
The Ravens are a very good example of why parity sux. They win the Super Bowl then collapse. At least the Bears teams of the 80's made a decent showing after they won the title. It's fun watching teams build and peak and try to stay. Certainly San Francisco fits that, they were just plain bad for many years.

Actually, the Ravens are a good example of a couple of things, but not why parity sucks.

1. Mismanagement of the salary cap. This isn't the primary reason, but they did have to let some good players go because of it.

2. Not understanding the importance of cohesion and having players fit the system. They'd have been right in it the next year if they had kept Dilfer instead of giving big money to Grbac.

3. Ego (Billick's). He let too many distractions in just to feed his ego. Remember HBO having access to his entire training camp?

Well my pirates made some more trades yesterday. It sucks that I know every season there is only going to be a week where they are at or above .500 and the day before the season starts counts as the most glorious day because at that point they are undeafeated.

Atleast my Steelers are a solid franchise that atleast shows they care about winning and put a good product on the field.

Originally posted by vtbub
Has the salary cap been good for football? Yes.

Does baseball need a cap? It needs a floor more than it needs a cap.

Do I think the NFL is better now than in 1990? No. In fact, I think it's worse. I really don't like the fact that teams can wobble so much from 6-10 records to 10-6 records and back. I don't like truly mediocre teams making the playoffs and am glad that they decided not to expand the playoff.

I don't think the average talent is as good as ten years ago. I should have the expectation that my team should beat teams x, y, and z every year and struggle with a, b, and c. Some weeks now, it's like watching NASCAR, they are all carbon copies of the same thing.


I agree with you, but I don't agree that it is solely a function of expansion. Football is still expanding at the lower levels, too. There may be more teams, but there are more sources feeding the league.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the cap is bad. I do think it squezes veterans out of the game quicker than before. I like the idea Blackader put forward.

Originally posted by Daimyo
I love the NFL system, but I'm not sure the amount of turnover would work for other sports. The NFL has the advantage of hiding the player's faces... I bet a casual fan wouldn't be able to recognize more than three or four of their team's players if they met them face to face. Add to this the fact that NFL rosters have so many more players than other sports and many less games to see the players and I think you really reduce the value of any individual while raising the value of the team in the eye's of fans. As long as the Colts keep Manning, Edge, and Harrison I'd guess the roster turnover will barely be noticed by 90% of the fans, even if half the team changes from year to year.

On the opposite spectrum you have basketball where there are only 5 guys starting and their faces are always on camera during games. I'd guess that roster turnover like the NFL's wouldn't go over nearly as well with the fans there.

Interesting point. Remember a few years ago when the NFL instituted the rule that if you took your helmet off in celebration, you would get the unsportsmanlike penalty? I also remember reading an article around that time saying how that was not to prevent excess celebration and taunting, but was a way by the NFL to keep players "faceless" for the exact reason that you are mentioning above.

Expansion surely isn't the only reason. Teams seems to be taking less and less risks.

It's the West Coast offense vs. the Zone Blitz every week for the most part.

Despite the quality drop, IMHO the NFL is the best sport out there. Certainly the drops in the NBA and NHL have been greater and have made themselves nearly unwatchable. MLB is about to go hrough another very good era, all that young pitching et al, the players and owners just need to think of the fans instead of money.

Originally posted by vtbub
Expansion surely isn't the only reason. Teams seems to be taking less and less risks.

It's the West Coast offense vs. the Zone Blitz every week for the most part.

Despite the quality drop, IMHO the NFL is the best sport out there. Certainly the drops in the NBA and NHL have been greater and have made themselves nearly unwatchable. MLB is about to go hrough another very good era, all that young pitching et al, the players and owners just need to think of the fans instead of money.


Completely agree.

Teams seems to be taking less and less risks.

I'm not really sure teams took MORE risks in the past. It may seem like they did when looking back nostaglically, but I don't remember there being that much more innovation in the 80s. You will always have coaches of a successful system promolgate the league until you have a certain style that is predominante and then someone comes in and shakes it all up. For example in the 70s you have big running teams with their great FBs and 4-3 defenses give way to the West Coast Offense and the 3-4 of the 80s, etc.

Not like there were that many great football minds in years past compared to today.

Originally posted by vtbub
Expansion surely isn't the only reason. Teams seems to be taking less and less risks.

It's the West Coast offense vs. the Zone Blitz every week for the most part.

This is one of the points I wanted to make. Some of it is that teams are taking less risks, some of it is that there still isn't a great answer for those systems, some of it is that teams try to use as simple systems as possible due to roster turnover. When you come from team X and every team in the league is using the West Coast offense, it won't take you so long to assimilate it (unless you're Rick Mirer). Considering how few players play out their contracts, you can't afford to wait 2-3 years for players to figure out your system because they'll be leaving just as they've learned it. Thus, you have less diversity on offense and defense, which is a shame. The NFL would be better with some innovation.

It's hard to say whether or not the talent is better or worse in the NFL now than it was ten years ago IMO. One thing to think about though, there are only so many wonderful athletes out there. If they have a wide variety of sports to choose from, will they opt for baseball or basketball, sports with less intense contact and guaranteed contracts, or football? Parcells made a point along these lines the other day, saying the reason that cornerbacks are smaller these days is that the larger players who would have been cornerbacks are choosing to play point guard in the NBA instead. I don't know if he's on the mark with that observation, but if I was an athlete with a choice, I wouldn't choose to play in the NFL.

That being said, I used to enjoy watching baseball and basketball, but watch basketball infrequently now and pretty much never watch baseball. Meanwhile, my NFL fanaticism has possibly increased.

1. Veterans can sign league minimum deals and only count the same amount against the cap as a 3rd year player. They'll be earning 750K or so, but only count 450 against the cap. Older players that are being "pushed out" of the league now are being pushed out because of one reason - lack of talent.

2. I love all the "i miss dynasties" talk. Has there not been plenty of powerful teams since the inception of the salary cap? I immediately think of the intense 3-way Green Bay, San Francisco, Dallas rivalry of the mid 90's, the Buccaneers, the Steelers, and the Eagles of the last 3 years. Look at the conference title games last year, all of those teams have been knocking on the door for 3+ years. Good, consistent teams ARE still around.

3. The #1 thing people are now overlooking is the new scheduling. Teams within a division play 14 common games. This means we'll see much less fast-rising/fast falling teams. I don't see how a team will be able to easily go from 4-12 to 12-4, unless the rest of their division collapses at once. Unless you're handling your roster like the Cardinals, there is no reason you can't put a consistent team on the field year-to-year. I predict the Eagles will be a playoff team year-in, year-out. Manage your cap well and you don't need to "go for it all" every season, then blow up the team and start over. Spend reasonably and draft well and you can be good every year, and hopefully be good enough 1 year to win the super bowl.

4. The NFL is cleary the best run league. There is really no debate about this. Guaranteed contracts just don't make sense in sports.

Well, there were 4 or 5 basic offenses in the 80's that included the west coast. I don't remember that one type being used by 80% of the league.

On defense, yes it's always been a 3-4 or a 4-3 base, the Bears being the exception.

As far as risk goes, I remember when it was a big deal for the QB's NOT to call their own plays.

It seems that teams seem to try to fit into an offense and not work to their strengths.

Well, there were 4 or 5 basic offenses in the 80's that included the west coast. I don't remember that one type being used by 80% of the league.

Well, the problem is that we are grouping EVERYTHING as West Coast. In the 80s, the St. Louis Rams / Kansas City O would probably not fit into that catagory. It is a much more downfield passing game than a traditional West Coast, Bill Walsh offense. There are, of course, other examples out there (I'm not sure how much of the Falcons or Dolphins offense was a true 'West Coast' Offense).

Originally posted by vtbub
It seems that teams seem to try to fit into an offense and not work to their strengths.

Very true. It seems to me that there are far more "system" teams than there used to be. The best coaches to me were those who always adapted to their personnel - Joe Gibbs and Bill Parcells come to mind. Think of the Parcells ground teams, and then airing it out like crazy with Bledsoe. Gibbs also had some serious running and passing teams. It doesn't make much sense to me to not adjust your game planning to the strengths of your squad. I would imagine this system thinking is the main source of draft busts and washout players.

Think you missed my point ISid.

Many teams were late converts to the Walsh pass to set up the run offense. From my memory, here is what I remember:

Air it out- San Diego, Miami, Denver, Raiders
Shotgun based- Dallas
"3 yards and a cloud of dust"- Pittsburgh, Giants, Rams, Chiefs to a point
West Coast- San Francisco, Cincy(to a point)
Run and Shoot- Houston, Detroit
K-Gun(no huddle)- Buffalo

Washington would seem to change every year

Others, a basic pro set.

Today, yes there are some varieties on that, Pittsburgh comes to mind with the ground game. The Rams are much to vertical for the "West Coast, even though they have the perfect offense for it.

The lack of variety today, the scripting of plays, the lack of spotinaiety(sp) is what I miss.

Is the "West Coast" effective? Sure. But, the best game plan I ever saw when the chips were on the line was Parcells beating Buffalo in SBXXV.

Originally posted by vtbub
Is the "West Coast" effective? Sure. But, the best game plan I ever saw when the chips were on the line was Parcells beating Buffalo in SBXXV.

What an amazing game that was. I have it on videotape, and will usually watch it during the long, long offseasons. Just an unbelievable all-around game. I said it then and I still say it now, Thurman Thomas should have been MVP.

vtbub, I STILL think that we use the 'West Coast' terminology for everything and there is much more variety out there in offensive strategy than people admit. 'West Coast Offense' has become a catch all, but when you label teams like Miami, Atlanta, Washington, Minnesota, etc as West Coast teams we are really selling short the diversity out there.

Originally posted by cthomer5000
1. Veterans can sign league minimum deals and only count the same amount against the cap as a 3rd year player. They'll be earning 750K or so, but only count 450 against the cap. Older players that are being "pushed out" of the league now are being pushed out because of one reason - lack of talent.


No, there are many guys who deserve more than the league minimum who leave football because that is all they're offered. There is still pretty good talent in the free agency right now, but no one wants to pay them any money to play.

Think about it. You were a running back who had a couple of 1,000 yard seasons. You still have speed and are able to cut, plus you have experience. Yet, no team wants to pay you more than the minimum to play because of your age ("I can get a younger guy who might not be as good, but cheaper"). Do you play for $750,000 when your used to making $2 million, and there are worse players than you still making that kind of scratch? Is it worth it to get beaten up running up the middle for what is in essence chicken-feed money?

Now do that for every position (save Quarterback. That is the only true position that lacks talent), and you can see many players retiring 2-5 years early because the money is just not worth it.

Originally posted by vtbub
Expansion surely isn't the only reason. Teams seems to be taking less and less risks.

It's the West Coast offense vs. the Zone Blitz every week for the most part.

Despite the quality drop, IMHO the NFL is the best sport out there. Certainly the drops in the NBA and NHL have been greater and have made themselves nearly unwatchable. MLB is about to go hrough another very good era, all that young pitching et al, the players and owners just need to think of the fans instead of money.

Ask NHL fans what they think about the damnable neutral zone trap. Or how about NBA fans and the lack of a team game? Or NL fans and that AL stand-around-waiting-for-a-3-run-homer mentality?

Stuff like this happens and once something can break those systems, there will be more diversity. Wasn't the 46 defense all the rage a good 15 years ago?

SI

Originally posted by GrantDawg
No, there are many guys who deserve more than the league minimum who leave football because that is all they're offered. There is still pretty good talent in the free agency right now, but no one wants to pay them any money to play.

Think about it. You were a running back who had a couple of 1,000 yard seasons. You still have speed and are able to cut, plus you have experience. Yet, no team wants to pay you more than the minimum to play because of your age ("I can get a younger guy who might not be as good, but cheaper"). Do you play for $750,000 when your used to making $2 million, and there are worse players than you still making that kind of scratch? Is it worth it to get beaten up running up the middle for what is in essence chicken-feed money?

Now do that for every position (save Quarterback. That is the only true position that lacks talent), and you can see many players retiring 2-5 years early because the money is just not worth it.

I disagree. I honestly think the best football players are in the NFL unless:

They are a headcase
They have other legal/drug/character issues
They've overestimated their value, and refused to play for what was offered

In your example, I would counter by telling that running back that he's not worth more than league minimum. If he was, someone would offer him more. Players values are set by the free market in the NFL, you're worth what someone is willing to pay for you. And if playing a game for 3/4 of a million dollars a year isn't enough to get you into training camp, then maybe you don't really enjoy football that much.

Originally posted by cthomer5000
2. I love all the "i miss dynasties" talk. Has there not been plenty of powerful teams since the inception of the salary cap? I immediately think of the intense 3-way Green Bay, San Francisco, Dallas rivalry of the mid 90's, the Buccaneers, the Steelers, and the Eagles of the last 3 years. Look at the conference title games last year, all of those teams have been knocking on the door for 3+ years. Good, consistent teams ARE still around.


A lot of people are just missing this: there still are dynasties. Denver and the Rams had 4 year windows where they had good odds to win their conference. Many other teams have had 2 or 3 year windows. Sure, there will be some lean years after that because you have to clean out the cap, but that's the bad part about the nature of the beast. Still, suck for 2 years, develop for 1-2, and you can have a 3-4 year window to win it all before you have to repeat.

I prefer that to the alternative which is the NBA or MLB or NHL. We already know the top 4 teams in the Western Conference of the NBA and NHL before the season is even played because they've been there for 4-5 years now and have just gotten richer.

I felt cheated when Baltimore won the Super Bowl but there were a couple of teams that year who would have been very deserving winners if they had gotten the job done. I'd rather have "unworthy" Super Bowl winners because they actually got it done on the field. If Florida or Kansas City fluked into a World Series this year, wouldn't that just be the same sort of "unworthy" winner?

SI

Ask NHL fans what they think about the damnable neutral zone trap. Or how about NBA fans and the lack of a team game? Or NL fans and that AL stand-around-waiting-for-a-3-run-homer mentality?

Stuff like this happens and once something can break those systems, there will be more diversity. Wasn't the 46 defense all the rage a good 15 years ago?

Totally agree :). In the past, you had these bottlenecks, where everyone copied everyone, and it took an innovator to break the mold. After the breaking you had a bunch of different systems for a short while, only to have one dominate once again.

It's a continuous cycle, and I don't think that the present day is any different from the past.

The cool thing is that the veteran exception idea in which a veteran gets tagged kind of like a franchise player is an idea that will probably become a reality. The main difference between the MLB and the NFL, is that the NFL actually listens to its fans and has enough brains to change the game for the better, i.e. replay.

Originally posted by sterlingice
A lot of people are just missing this: there still are dynasties. Denver and the Rams had 4 year windows where they had good odds to win their conference. Many other teams have had 2 or 3 year windows. Sure, there will be some lean years after that because you have to clean out the cap, but that's the bad part about the nature of the beast. Still, suck for 2 years, develop for 1-2, and you can have a 3-4 year window to win it all before you have to repeat.


"Having a window" is not a dynasty. The Rams cannot be a dynasty with a 7-9 record throw in there. Denver won 2 SB's in a row, then went 6-10. Not a dynasty.


Originally posted by sterlingice
I prefer that to the alternative which is the NBA or MLB or NHL. We already know the top 4 teams in the Western Conference of the NBA and NHL before the season is even played because they've been there for 4-5 years now and have just gotten richer.


To me, this is all about attention span. While the NFL has certainly tapped into the short attention span/sound bite world that we've become, I don't necessarily think it's a good thing. In football, it's rare for most teams to have more than a few years in a row where they are playoff-caliber, and every year, several team pop up out of nowhere and then sink right back to the bottom the next year. I just think the unpredictability has swung too far to the other side. Not that every team should make the playoffs year after year, but they shouldn't go from losing record to Super Bowl to losing record. There's something wrong with that picture.

In baseball/hockey, teams sustain good/bad performances for 5-10 years, and every team that is able to pop its head up is that much more special. Like the 2002 Angels, the 1991 Twins/Braves, etc. The teams dominating for the past few years will mostly be replaced over the next decade. The Braves, Mariners, and Indians were the poster-children for bad franchises in the 80's, now look at them. That, to me, is a "natural" progression, and fans are rewarded over time for being, well, fans.

The NFL is like baseball history on crack - everything is sped up to cram 4 decades worth of progression in "baseball time" into a decade worth of football history. The rise and fall of the Broncos, the mini-dynasty of the Rams and Ravens, etc. That kind of stuff plays itself out over longer spans of time in baseball and hockey.

The Tigers will one day make the playoffs again. Just because it's not 2 years from now doesn't mean there's anything wrong with baseball. Unless, of course, you can't go 30 seconds without thinking of something else. Which is why the NFL's setup is so popular. Violence combined with pick-a-new-winner-every-year = popularity in the Y2K.

The Ravens didn't win the Super Bowl and then immediately suck/collapse/mishandle the cap.

They went 10-6 the following season, and went to the second round of the playoffs. They did this without Jamal Lewis - who was hurt and missed the entire season. Yes Grbac was a mistake, but Dilfer wasn't exactly a premiere QB either.

I think the the NFL is awesome. I think that we will see it be better managed, allowing for us to see better a product.

Look at the Eagles, they have been contenders for about 4-5 years, am I right? Why? They are GREAT at cap management, make smart moves and use the draft, to fill a big hole or so (like letting Douglass go, and taking the DE out of Miami), then using the rest as picks with an eye towards the future (letting a guy go via fa, and using a pick on his replacement), allowing him time to grow and develop. Will they be a dynasty, no, but they always be a competitive playoff-football team. I think teams are starting to adapt to this smart planning more, and it will in the long run, give us more of less unpredictilly, and provide us more of a professional league to me.

I like to see the NFL dump NFL Europe, and develop a minor league system back home. Play it in the fall, but teams CANNOT call up players. My idea for this would be:

Each team can allocate ten players to the league. Expand the second to last cutdown to 65 players, up from the 60 we have now. If a player has "camp" deal (no long-term commiment), they could be allocated to the camp on a one-year-deal and automatically be on the roster for next camp with that same team. However, the player can be placed on waivers, and if a team does claim him for it's roster, they can. A team can allocate a 5th, 6th or 7th round draft pick of that year and can play for one season in the minor league, and only his signing bonus would count against the roster of the big leagues. A Player's contract can include a "First-Year Minor League" clause. That would give you 320 players for maybe a eight-team league, bringing to you 40 players a team. They all go into a draft, and be able to be drafted by teams. Gives the a league a real competitiviness, not just a minor league. Then, the league's teams can sign eight free agents. Play a 14-game regular season (one away, one at home vs. each team), then a four-team playoff.

This would provide the NFL with a real minor league. By allowing teams to allocate rookie late-round draft picks and just-miss-the-cut-but-got-a-long-look players, your giving them alot of playing time, a chance to develop over a 14-game regular season, and bottom line, provide more better players for the league and the league another marketing vechile on home turf. By having no-"ties" between teams and minor league teams (like Baseball), and allowing teams to be able to draft and sign players on their own, your going to create a real football team, which creates fasn base, another tv viewing, ect...Would need a longer training camp then NFL Europe as well. It would be a ground for refs and coaching/management development as well. Play it on Wednesday nites or something.

I also think the NFL needs a more competitive balance schedule, giving each team a "similar strenght" schedule each year. I know they use to, under the old alingment, award weak teams with easier slates, and good teams, with harder slates.


Your thoughts?

Originally posted by SunDancer
I like to see the NFL dump NFL Europe, and develop a minor league system back home. Play it in the fall, but teams CANNOT call up players...

Well, I would love for the CFL to become a minor league system for the NFL. The NFL could buy the entire league without any difficulty. CFL purists would scoff, but NFL rules and affiliation would rock. If, for example, the Calgary Stampeders were the minor league affiliate of the Denver Broncos, I'd sure as hell be watching Broncos games, looking for the guys who played up here.

There was an agreement a couple years ago (ironically, just after Garcia headed down) where the NFL gave the CFL some marketing cash in exchange for shortening contracts (removing team options I think). It meant guys like Marc Boerighter could move to KC earlier.

The NFL is without question the best run league in the world.

Q: How did the owner's break the union? What's the use of the NFLPA now? Could it work in other leagues like the impending NHL lockout?

Ksyrup,

Did the Denver "dynasty" end because of the cap or because John Elway retired and Terrell Davis, Shannon Sharpe and John Mobely had season ending injuries within the first month of the season?

Teams who manage the cap well have a shot to keep their teams together for long periods of time. The Rams have had the main core of their offense together for four years now. (and should be able to keep that group together for another 3 or 4)

Again, you're a fan of the Broncos. . . how many big names have they lost due to the salary cap? By contrast, how many big name free agents have they grabbed over the years? (all of them have been busts, but that is besides the point) :)

Thing is, if you work your finances right, you can easily put together a 7-9 year run before getting into any cap problems. Then, if you deal with the fact your cap situation has gotten out of hand early, you can rebuild and have a shot at winning within a couple of years.

The NFL has the best system going. :)

TroyF

Originally posted by Karim
Well, I would love for the CFL to become a minor league system for the NFL. The NFL could buy the entire league without any difficulty. CFL purists would scoff, but NFL rules and affiliation would rock. If, for example, the Calgary Stampeders were the minor league affiliate of the Denver Broncos, I'd sure as hell be watching Broncos games, looking for the guys who played up here.

There was an agreement a couple years ago (ironically, just after Garcia headed down) where the NFL gave the CFL some marketing cash in exchange for shortening contracts (removing team options I think). It meant guys like Marc Boerighter could move to KC earlier.

The NFL is without question the best run league in the world.

Q: How did the owner's break the union? What's the use of the NFLPA now? Could it work in other leagues like the impending NHL lockout?

True, but the CFL is it's own league with only eight teams. The Broncos fielding 40 players would not fulfill the purpose of the league. Allow it some individually among teams and the league's itself. The League would be only for guys who just need some playing time. But I like to see No tie-ins and allow a real league. Players allocated must be drafted, but it's a great way to give a real league, develop coaches and management as well. Keep it in the states, and take it to medium-and-smaller markets. It's give the league alot more fan base potential, and a chance to get a good tv deal. By keeping it in the states, you keep players at home, give the big leagues a chance to see the guys more often and play a longer season in a football-crazy nation, and allow the league to have a great tool at hand to use. Not many players really want to go internationally.

Plus, the CFL being change to American Football, might not worked too well in Canada. Prolly kill a fanbase, and might damage the NFL's rep in Canada.

I hate dynasties, and I love dynasties. Let me explain (and I apologize if I'm just repeating what's already been said).

In the here and now, the present, the immediate, I hate dynasties. I like seeing teams come out of nowhere, then next year seeing new teams come out of nowhere. I like seeing the 2001 Bears, of which nothing was expected, go 13-3 and make the playoffs for the first time in years. I like seeing the 1999 Rams, 2000 Ravens, and 2001 Patriots come out of nowhere and win the Super Bowl. Unpredictability is great during the present season. I mean, I love baseball, but (shock! gasp!) the Yankees and Braves are in first again and have the best records in their respective leagues. :rolleyes: It's much more fun as a fan to get geared up for the latest White Sox/Royals game (whodda thunk it??) than seeing another stupid first-place Yankees team roll into town.

On the other hand...when looking over the history of a sport, I love dynasties. Two of my favorites books are "Baseball Dynasties" (by Rob Neyer and Eddie Epstein), which describes and ranks the 15 greatest baseball dynasties of all time, and "Dominance" (by Eddie all by himself), which ranks the 12 greatest football teams of all time (single season, yes, but all of the teams are in the middle of really good runs). I love rereading these books because they draw to mind such legendary teams, teams for which just simply saying the year and the team name makes us all nod in awe (the 1927 Yankees, the 1975 Big Red Machine, the 1979 Steelers, the 1985 Bears). As others have said, dynasties are a great tool to measure your team's present ability and place in history against. Going back to my previous paragraph, yes, I loved seeing the 2001 Patriots win the Super Bowl...but it was much more meaningful because it came against the 2001 Rams, they of the legendary offense and Super Bowl win just 2 years earlier (just as the 2002 Angels had to beat the Yankees to win it all). If the Patriots had beaten, say, the 2001 Eagles, would it have been nearly as meaningful of an upset?

So, basically, in the here and now, not having dynasties in football (and having them in baseball) wins points for me for football. But, when we look back at the late 1990s/early 2000s years from now, what will we remember? The "legendary" 2001 Patriots, or those amazing Yankees? So baseball wins in terms of history.

Basically, what I'm saying is, I love both sports for what they offer, even though I wish they both had a little more of what the other has (more unpredictability in baseball, more dynasties in football).

I consider myself "old school" and never loved the NFL more than when I was a kid in the 70's. Still, I like the NFL financial system. I wish baseball was similar. Where I think quality lags does not stem from finances. Actually, I think the game benefits from the finances.

Where I think the game lags is the way players are used. Back in the 70's units like The Steel Curtain or Doomsday Defense didn't swap out every other play or change the front 7 for a passing down. Jack Lambert was so great because he was as good a pass defender at MLB as he was run stopper. I doubt he took off more than 10 plays an entire game, ever (unless he was thrown out for fighting). Granted, he wasn't the steroid grown behemoth today's players are, but he was a far more all around skilled player than any MLB (with the possible exception of Urlacher who can pass cover) today.

Players weren't the physical specimans they are today, but they played the whole game and played with more skill. They also don't tackle today like they used to. Hardly anyone wraps up a runner with their arms. They fly in with a shoulder or try to trip a guy. Little things like that are lacking skill.

I love how the NFL manages their league. It's by far the best run league in America if not the world...

I'm not a guru on salary caps or financial minutiae of any sport, though I do know enough to somewhat understand why teams make some of the moves they do.
Football's by far my favorite sport (I'm from Dallas), but in my opinion the financial system in the NBA makes for a much more exciting offseason than the other sports, with the possible exception of the NHL.
Teams in the NBA always seem to have a certain degree of financial flexibility that teams in other sports don't have. You see the best and most successful teams in the West all making major deals and improving their rosters this summer, as opposed to the NFL where you often see successful teams either unable to improve themselves or forced to get rid of good players for cap reasons. The Ravens probably brought in a bunch of new fans as a result of their championship season, only for those people to see their team completely dismantled in less than two years.
While it's true that parity in the NBA is not nearly on par with that of the NFL, teams in basketball overall are much closer to one another in talent level than teams are in baseball. Also, you still see big signings of marquee free agents, a la Jason Kidd. The last really big free-agent signing of a player in his prime I can remember was the Deion Sanders deal (but that might be because of my Dallas bias). If teams are unable to score big in free agency, they can always use players in the last year of their contracts as real trade value to acquire a big-name player. That means that even if your team has no money under the cap, there's still hope of a move that will improve the roster. And if trades aren't possible, there are always the mid and lower-level cap exceptions. This offseason has proven that those cap exceptions allow veterans to play until they're completely "used up", so to speak (i.e. Karl Malone, Scottie Pippen, Alonzo Mourning).
Guaranteed contracts obviously have their disadvantages too--it's awfully frustrating seeing Shawn Bradley and Raef Lafrentz eat up all that cap space for the Mavericks when they do just about as much as any 7-footer in the world could against the big men in the West. But it still allows for all the interesting trade activity that, for me, makes the sport much more interesting in between seasons (and all the way up to the trade deadline). Trading is a lost art in the NFL.
Plus, with all the loading up the best teams in the West are doing, you still see young teams up-and-coming who have built primarily through the draft and have shown the ability to compete with the best teams (Houston and Phoenix).
Anyway sorry for the length and rambling--hope it makes sense.

Originally posted by SunDancer
Plus, the CFL being change to American Football, might not worked too well in Canada. Prolly kill a fanbase, and might damage the NFL's rep in Canada.

Combining Toronto and Vancouver (population over 7 million), you've got maybe 50,000 CFL fans MAX. NFL fans in those two markets are probably well over two million. Buffalo and Seattle especially have followers in both markets.

Yes, the CFL has been around since 1909, limping along as it always has. History and tradition are its strong points; league management is not.