Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
Well, I wasn't talking about the Redskins, I was talking more about the shared revenue of the entire league, and thusly the salary cap.
What if there isn't a season in 2011, or if the season is strike shortened? That will dry up the cash really fast, I mean, look at baseball. If they choose to keep the cap in football beyond 2010, the league wide profits will dry up at some point. If that's ten years later...then it doesn't really mean anything, as we will be out of the woods by then. But what if between 2009 and 2012, the cap doesn't go up because the league is not earning any more money than it did the prior season?
If the cap doesn't go up, we won't be able to prorate any signing bonuses to get under the cap. We would have to cut players based on contract structure, not merit, and depending on how bad it is, we might not even be able to sign top end amature talent.
I hope that football moves away from a salary cap structure, and more towards what baseball has now. People think that would create some league disparity...and it would to the extent that the Cowboys and Redskins would be around the playoffs every year...but not to the extent that the Yankees and Red Sox are. It certainly would be easier on small-market teams to retain homegrown talent throughout it's useful life, (then it is in baseball) and you would still have the franchise tag if necessary.
But in a non-capped NFL, the only Free Agents that would ever hit the market would be guys in their primes who could provide immediate help to the Cowboys or Redskins, but would begin their decline as soon as they were signed due to age. Derrick Dockery would still be a Skin if that were the case.
Anyway, I think the Redskins are predicting the NFL will head in that direction, because it would have been easy to get away from bad contracts this offseason, but instead, they've restructured and will try to compete again.
|
A couple things:
A strike in 2011 would certainly cause problems for the Redskins cap situation, which certainly played a part in their decision not to pursue free agents this offseason.
But as for cash drying up in the NFL as a result of a strike, or any other reason for that matter, I think you're off base there. Baseball suffered financially from the '93 strike, but baseball does not have the same intense fan following that the NFL does. The appetite for NFL games is strong enough in most markets to support consistent increases in ticket prices and advertising rates. I know I for one would still pay DirecTV $500 to get access to all of the Skins games on TV each year. Please don't tell them I said that, because I much prefer $200. Major League Baseball's stadium venues aren't selling at max capacity like the NFL is. There is excess demand for the NFL's product, the same can't be said for baseball.
From a selfish standpoint, I wouldn't mind a shift to baseball's financial structure as it would mark the return of the annual dominance of the NFC East and our rivalries would no doubt heat up even further. But for league-wide revenues, it's a terrible idea. Fan interest will only decline within small markets, as fans begin to perceive that winning a championship is an impossibility.