Congrats to the NFL...

[Phhhl]

On, again, showing why it is the greatest professional sports league in the world tonight with it's title game. Nothing compares to baseball in my heart, but for the competitive balance, a fair salary structure and the drama of individual events, nothing compares to the NFL as it currently exists in the history of professional sports.

Congratulations to the Patriots for working within this, the most competitive system of all time, to establish the most legitimate "dynasty" in the last 29 years in all of professional sports. The New England reign really means something. Why should I ever be a fan when their spoils mean nothing to me? But, why should I not hold them in the highest respect regardless of that when they thrive in a system that rewards intelligence and due dilligence?

Baseball could learn a thing or two from the NFL. Nobody could ever disuade me from how I feel after watching the NFL kick the ass of every other professional sport for over a decade.... and counting. No how, no way. This is how all sports should be.

[SteelSD]

Didn't watch the Chicago Bulls a lot during the 90's, didja?

[IslandRed]

Good points, but as to your underlying assumption -- that the salary cap is responsible for this -- I have to disagree. The NFL has been on an upward curve since the early 1960s when the league took over complete control of TV game broadcasts; people have been talking about NFL parity (sometimes in mocking "parity = mediocrity" tones) for decades; the NFL had long since passed MLB as the national pastime by the time they put in a salary cap. Revenue sharing, not the salary cap, is why the NFL has had competitive balance all along. Revenue sharing is why the Green Bay Packers still exist.

As I watch the NFL, frankly, I don't see much that's different from the pre-cap days -- except for a lot more offseason news. For all the talk about how it makes it harder to stay on top, the Patriots are still there and not going anywhere, the Eagles have been good for a half-dozen years now, and any team that can luck into a good quarterback will make a run as long as they can find some talent to go around him. The smartest teams still win, the others still lose. The only real effect I've seen from the cap is to slightly compress the build-win-rebuild cycle. That's all.

[MWM]

Originally Posted by IslandRed

Revenue sharing, not the salary cap, is why the NFL has had competitive balance all along. Revenue sharing is why the Green Bay Packers still exist.

Amen, brother. I've argued the same thing on several occassions. Better sharing of local revenues is the key to a more equitable system within baseball. M2 convinced me of this a few years back and I've been a spokesman ever since.

[remdog]

Originally Posted by IslandRed

Revenue sharing, not the salary cap, is why the NFL has had competitive balance all along. Revenue sharing is why the Green Bay Packers still exist.

That's half right----but the salary cap is the other half of the equation.

The L.A. Times had an interesting article regarding the players' relations with various leagues. The thesis, advanced by a number of 'experts' (labor consultants, sports marketing professors and sports business analysts) is that where players form a 'partnership' with owners not only do the players and owners prosper but so does the game.

From the L. A. Times, 2/5/05:

"....sports business analysts say the landscape has shifted.

From a sustainable business model, there's a key partnership that has to be forged....There's a feeling that ownership would like to have some cost certainity and would be willing to reward players for building the business.

The example....(they)....point to is the NFL.

The league has a so-called 'hard' cap that prohibits teams from spending more than approximately 64% of defined gross revenues, or money from radio, television or gate.

Players agreed to that upper limit because they received a 'floor' that forces teams to spend at least 56% of revenues on payroll. This guarantees the players a slice of ever-expanding broadcast dollars."

Baseball, so far, has not formed that partnership though the NHL is the poster child for lack of agreement at this time.

Rem

[macro]

Originally Posted by IslandRed

...the Patriots are still there and not going anywhere...

This is the only thing from your post that I disagree with. I know this is the baseball forum, but I can't resist pointing out that NE is losing their offensive coordinator and their defensive coordinator from their three championship teams, and neither will be easily replaced.

They'll remain a good team for a while, but the dynasty is over. They'll fall back to the pack in '05. Mark it down.

[Mutaman]

Originally Posted by macro

This is the only thing from your post that I disagree with. I know this is the baseball forum, but I can't resist pointing out that NE is losing their offensive coordinator and their defensive coordinator from their three championship teams, and neither will be easily replaced.

They'll remain a good team for a while, but the dynasty is over. They'll fall back to the pack in '05. Mark it down.

Not unless that guy Brady retires.

[VI_RedsFan]

Originally Posted by macro

This is the only thing from your post that I disagree with. I know this is the baseball forum, but I can't resist pointing out that NE is losing their offensive coordinator and their defensive coordinator from their three championship teams, and neither will be easily replaced.

They'll remain a good team for a while, but the dynasty is over. They'll fall back to the pack in '05. Mark it down.

As long as they still have Belichick, they'll be just fine.

[KronoRed]

/\ Agrees, full revenue sharing is the only answer, no salary cap or floor will help as much

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by KronoRed

/\ Agrees, full revenue sharing is the only answer, no salary cap or floor will help as much

Adding my voice in agreement as well. The YES network provides Steinbrenner with a good chunk of the funds he uses on the Yankees. FSN Ohio and other similar networks just can't compete with that.

[MWM]

David Klingler could QB that team and they'd still win.

[Mutaman]

Originally Posted by MWM

David Klingler could QB that team and they'd still win.

Well except David Klingler doesn't quarterback that team, Tom Brady does. He now has 3 rings, has the lowest turnover ratio in NFL postseason history (better than Starr), and is 10-1 in postseason play. And he's well on his way to the Hall of Fame. The only thing he didn't do today was get his 3rd MVP trophy. What does he have to do to convince you people?

[Aronchis]

Brady is a great short passer in the tradition of Joe Montana.

Maybe the wackiest thing is Romeo Crennel becoming the Browns new head coach. The same Crennel who was DC in Cleveland during the 2000 season when they beat Belichecks Patriots when Bill was considered a idiot. Strange how things work out.

[Mutaman]

Opps I was wrong, Brady's 9-0 in postseason. Plus I seem to remmember that he had a huge game in winning the Orange bowl.

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by Mutaman

Well except David Klingler doesn't quarterback that team, Tom Brady does. He now has 3 rings, has the lowest turnover ratio in NFL postseason history (better than Starr), and is 10-1 in postseason play. And he's well on his way to the Hall of Fame. The only thing he didn't do today was get his 3rd MVP trophy. What does he have to do to convince you people?

Contribute more to his teams wins than his coaching staff does.

I've never seen a team before that has more talent on the sidelines than on the field of play until this Patriots team.

If I'm starting a team I take that front office and Bill Belichek. Brady's an afterthought.