ChiefsPlanet
Page 2 of 5 1 2 345
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Football NFLPA To Decertify By March 3rd (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=242079)

alnorth 02-26-2011 06:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 7455137)
Okay, but the main source of contention seems to be preventing the large market teams outspending the smaller market teams, and that is prevented from happening due to the CBA (and all that it brings).

If that is the case, did the large market teams outspend the smaller market teams before the CBA came into being, leading to domination based on spending?
how many decades has it been since there was no CBA? Its not like the CBA is a newfangled invention.

The collective bargaining agreement forces all the various interests into joining two parties: owners and players. If most of the owners want a salary cap, the large markets have no choice but to go along, because the players are all union.

The teams are not owned by the NFL. Without a union and without a CBA, maybe the NFL will be able to persuade all owners to sign onto one deal that all owners must follow, but maybe not. Maybe the Cowboys just go out, ignore the concept of a draft, sign whoever they want who isn't already signed, and demand that the NFL continue to include them in their league schedule "or else".

kstater 02-26-2011 06:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 7455120)
Just so I'm clear, the NFLPA called for a salary cap?
It was a concession to get a salary floor.

Brock 02-26-2011 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laz (Post 7455104)
Yes /Brock
Yes. /Brock

Donger 02-26-2011 06:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alnorth (Post 7455162)
how many decades has it been since there was no CBA? Its not like the CBA is a newfangled invention.

The collective bargaining agreement forces all the various interests into joining two parties: owners and players. If most of the owners want a salary cap, the large markets have no choice but to go along, because the players are all union.

The teams are not owned by the NFL. Without a union and without a CBA, maybe the NFL will be able to persuade all owners to sign onto one deal that all owners must follow, but maybe not. Maybe the Cowboys just go out, ignore the concept of a draft, sign whoever they want who isn't already signed, and demand that the NFL continue to include them in their league schedule "or else".
Please understand that I'm not arguing. I'm just getting up to speed regarding the politics of the NFL.

It looks like the CBA was first put in place in 1968, and lost it in 1987 through 1993.

So, did the big market teams dominate during 1987-1993?

kstater 02-26-2011 06:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 7455178)
Please understand that I'm not arguing. I'm just getting up to speed regarding the politics of the NFL.

It looks like the CBA was first put in place in 1968, and lost it in 1987 through 1993.

So, did the big market teams dominate during 1987-1993?
SB winners during those years:
Washington, SF, SF, NY, Washington, Dallas, Dallas

Donger 02-26-2011 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kstater (Post 7455181)
SB winners during those years:
Washington, SF, SF, NY, Washington, Dallas, Dallas
Okay, and do people argue that those teams won because they out-spent the competition?

Brock 02-26-2011 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kstater (Post 7455181)
SB winners during those years:
Washington, SF, SF, NY, Washington, Dallas, Dallas
On the other hand, Buffalo went to 4 super bowls in that time period.

I don't believe the salary cap has made any difference at all, competitively.

Donger 02-26-2011 06:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock (Post 7455184)
On the other hand, Buffalo went to 4 super bowls in that time period.

I don't believe the salary cap has made any difference at all, competitively.
That's a good point.

tk13 02-26-2011 06:21 PM
Remember that present day free agency didn't come into affect until 93 or 94 or so.

Donger 02-26-2011 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock (Post 7455172)
Yes. /Brock
Why?

Brock 02-26-2011 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 7455189)
Why?
To gain and hold benefits they otherwise wouldn't.

alnorth 02-26-2011 06:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk13 (Post 7455188)
Remember that present day free agency didn't come into affect until 93 or 94 or so.
good point. If there was no free agency and all teams still decided to honor the draft, then the large markets couldn't buy players.

Donger 02-26-2011 06:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock (Post 7455194)
To gain and hold benefits they otherwise wouldn't.
Specifically what?

Mr. Laz 02-26-2011 06:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock (Post 7455184)
On the other hand, Buffalo went to 4 super bowls in that time period.

I don't believe the salary cap has made any difference at all, competitively.
you're insane

if the NFL loses the salary cap completely, for a long period of time, you will see teams from big markets start to take over.

CrazyPhuD 02-26-2011 06:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 7455178)
Please understand that I'm not arguing. I'm just getting up to speed regarding the politics of the NFL.

It looks like the CBA was first put in place in 1968, and lost it in 1987 through 1993.

So, did the big market teams dominate during 1987-1993?
Except one has to remember that there was no free agency from 87-89 from 89-93 there was 'Plan B free agency' from 93+ is what we have today. Even plan B was fairly restrictive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_B_Free_Agency

Effectively transition tags for every relevant player. The period is far too short and the lack of effective free agency to draw much in the way of conclusions on a salary cap.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:07 PM.
Page 2 of 5 1 2 345
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.