MLB has more parity than any of the other major professional sports in the US. The main goal of a salary cap is to encourage parity. But baseball has no salary cap. You have to look no further than these 2 teams in the WS. Would the NFL be better off getting rid of the salary cap?

Does MLB have more parity than the NFL?

Does MLB have more parity than the NFL?

As far as the continual cycle of bad teams becoming good and good teams becoming bad. If you just look at the WS vs. SB teams then they're about the same parity wise. But baseball is way more cyclical. In the NFL the bad teams stay bad and the good teams stay good (generally). In baseball you can go from perennial bottom dwellers to in the World Series in basically 2 years. i.e. the Cubs and Royals. For the record, I think the nature of the game of football limits itself to having a salary cap. But it was just something I was thinking about.

Next question would be why would the NFL change ? Do they believe they have a problem?

Some bad teams in the NFL stay bad and vice versa, but that's not always the case.

 

The Niners were good, then really bad, then pretty good again and now they're terrible.

 

The Giants won 2 super bowls in the past 10 years but haven't made the playoffs since 2011.

Next question would be why would the NFL change ? Do they believe they have a problem?

I don't know do they? I would think the NFL would want the Browns, Jaguars, etc. to be good. I don't think it is good for business to have the bottom dwellers consistetly on the bottom. The NFL definitely doesn't have a problem. But I was just curious if it would be possible in the NFL.

Some bad teams in the NFL stay bad and vice versa, but that's not always the case.

 

The Niners were good, then really bad, then pretty good again and now they're terrible.

 

The Giants won 2 super bowls in the past 10 years but haven't made the playoffs since 2011.

Good points. But it happens more in baseball. Just look at the NL Central. Every team in the NL Central has made the playoffs in the last 5 years. Then you look at say the AFC east where the patriots have won the division basically every year since Brady and Bellicheck have been there.

I don't know do they? I would think the NFL would want the Browns, Jaguars, etc. to be good. I don't think it is good for business to have the bottom dwellers consistetly on the bottom. The NFL definitely doesn't have a problem. But I was just curious if it would be possible in the NFL.

 

I may be mistaken but I thought the Browns had good a attendance record now matter how good or bad the team was. If they do have a good attendance record, as I believe, the NFL probably doesn't give a damn about them ever being good.

 

In regards to attendance, on the contrary, the Indians only averaged 19K this year at home games.

I may be mistaken but I thought the Browns had good a attendance record now matter how good or bad the team was. If they do have a good attendance record, as I believe, the NFL probably doesn't give a damn about them ever being good.

 

In regards to attendance, on the contrary, the Indians only averaged 19K this year at home games.

Football is sort of unique in that sense though. There are only 16 games a year. Baseball you have 162. People don't show up to Wednesday afternoon games. I would say the Indians probably averaged 25k+ on weekends. But the Browns do have good attendance and I'm really not trying to take a shot here, but it's Cleveland. There is nothing else to do in Cleveland. The Jaguars are bad too and they have horrible attendance. They have to tarp off large portions of the upper deck for seemingly every game.

Baseball you have 162. People don't show up to Wednesday afternoon games. I would say the Indians probably averaged 25k+ on weekends.

 

Just weird to me that in the Reds worst season in a while, they still outdrew the Indians by 300K.

Just weird to me that in the Reds worst season in a while, they still outdrew the Indians by 300K.

Just thinking of reasons for that, maybe it has something to do with the fact that the Cavs were still playing for the first 3 months of the baseball season. I don't know that, but I'm just trying to come up with a reason.

MLB has more parity than any of the other major professional sports in the US. The main goal of a salary cap is to encourage parity. But baseball has no salary cap. You have to look no further than these 2 teams in the WS. Would the NFL be better off getting rid of the salary cap?

 

Agree to disagree on MLB having more parity.

 

Also to answer the question, no not having a salary cap would be one of the worst moves the NFL could make. In fact not having a salary cap, probably would make the NFL the worst sports league in terms of parity. Just imagine what a team like the Patriots would be like if their was no salary cap. They could give that huge contract to Brady, and still spend as much money as they want to surround him.

 

The NFL has more parity than baseball IMO. You mention the Royals, and Cubs, etc. But how many years did it take both of those teams to even get to this point? Multiple rebuilds that ultimately failed, until they finally got it right. Just look at the Reds after the 1995 season, it took them 15 years before getting back to the playoffs. In the NFL we do see teams go from horrible to playoff teams the very next year, and first to last quickly. There is a reason why only 4 teams have made the playoffs consecutively over the last few years.

 

Without a salary cap the Patriots probably have 8 Super Bowl wins right now and more appearances. A team like the Colts are probably a top team right now, because they wouldn't have gotten crippled like they did after giving Luck his deal and not having money to put a solid team around him. Same with the Ravens after they won the Super Bowl, they gave Flacco a huge deal, and have gone down since because his huge contract prevents them from putting as good of a team around him.

 

In Baseball you do have teams when they get the rebuild right that come on. However there are far many more who fail in rebuilding, than those who get it right. Just imagine how great baseball would actually be if they did have a salary cap. In Baseball over the last 16 years, the Cardinals have won multiple World Series as well as the Yankees the Giants, and the Red Sox. In these 16 years 4 teams have accounted for 10 of the 16 World Series titles. In the last 16 years in the NFL, I think there is 4 too who have won multiple Super Bowls. The Pats, Giants, Ravens and Steelers. With the Pats being the only consistent team to make the Playoffs consistently over the last 16 years. Without a salary cap though, we will see teams with with top QB's dominant even more than they already do.

It would work great for owners with a lot of money. It would suck for small time owners like the Bengals who are running a business not just doing it to inflate their egos.

Agree to disagree on MLB having more parity.

 

Also to answer the question, no not having a salary cap would be one of the worst moves the NFL could make. In fact not having a salary cap, probably would make the NFL the worst sports league in terms of parity. Just imagine what a team like the Patriots would be like if their was no salary cap. They could give that huge contract to Brady, and still spend as much money as they want to surround him.

 

The NFL has more parity than baseball IMO. You mention the Royals, and Cubs, etc. But how many years did it take both of those teams to even get to this point? Multiple rebuilds that ultimately failed, until they finally got it right. Just look at the Reds after the 1995 season, it took them 15 years before getting back to the playoffs. In the NFL we do see teams go from horrible to playoff teams the very next year, and first to last quickly. There is a reason why only 4 teams have made the playoffs consecutively over the last few years.

 

Without a salary cap the Patriots probably have 8 Super Bowl wins right now and more appearances. A team like the Colts are probably a top team right now, because they wouldn't have gotten crippled like they did after giving Luck his deal and not having money to put a solid team around him. Same with the Ravens after they won the Super Bowl, they gave Flacco a huge deal, and have gone down since because his huge contract prevents them from putting as good of a team around him.

 

In Baseball you do have teams when they get the rebuild right that come on. However there are far many more who fail in rebuilding, than those who get it right. Just imagine how great baseball would actually be if they did have a salary cap. In Baseball over the last 16 years, the Cardinals have won multiple World Series as well as the Yankees the Giants, and the Red Sox. In these 16 years 4 teams have accounted for 10 of the 16 World Series titles. In the last 16 years in the NFL, I think there is 4 too who have won multiple Super Bowls. The Pats, Giants, Ravens and Steelers. With the Pats being the only consistent team to make the Playoffs consistently over the last 16 years. Without a salary cap though, we will see teams with with top QB's dominant even more than they already do.

That is the same argument people keep making about baseball too. "The small market teams can't compete with the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers." But yet those three teams don't win the world series every year. Yet you have the Cubs who were baseballs equivalent to the Browns for basically my entire life in the world series, then you have the Indians and Royals (who played in the previous 2 WS) who exemplify a small market team. I just couldn't see the Browns or Jaguars making the Super Bowl in the next 5 years. For the record I think the NFL needs to have a salary cap and it just wouldn't make sense to not have a salary cap. I don't want you to think I'm arguing for it, it was just something I was thinking about when I was getting ready to watch the game last night.

I hate salary caps and drafts and whatever other forms of collusion they keep coming up with in the continuing masquerade of entertainment as competition, but it would be interesting to see what would happen in the NFL were it working on MLB's model of the Competitive Balance Tax.

 

Only four MLB teams exceeded the tax threshold last year, the Dodgers doing so in outlandish style (tax takes effect at $189 million, Dodgers payroll was $298 million), but with it being only four teams, it seems the tax is doing its job of keeping most teams away from that number.