This. Things have changed with the timesPosted via Mobile Device

It didn't make any difference to KC. The salary cap never kept any team from signing any player they wanted to. Everybody thinks the salary cap is what introduced parity to the NFL, and that's false.

You keep making really obvious points as if it's something I don't already know.

But a team can franchise a team-changing player, right? As mentioned above, having a "franchise QB" seems to be of utmost importance to success.

No revenue sharing introduced parity. The salary cap helps reinforce it. You have to remember revenue disparity is significantly more than it used to be because only a limited amount of revenue is shared and there are now a lot more sources that are untouched. It used to be tickets and TV contracts were the lions share of revenue but that is lessening over time.

This is not the NBA. You could sign one player for a staggering contract a couple million under the salary cap and hand out minimums to arena league players. You might have one awesome player, but you'll go 0-16.

The salary cap prevents you from buying an entire team, it forces you to make sacrifices and be smart with your money in a league where everyone has the same resources. We aren't trying to prevent large markets from getting one player, we're preventing them from putting together half an all-star team.

Without a salary cap, the big markets have a big advantage, player salaries escalate, and it becomes tougher for KC to win.

Again, your "well, it wont be all bad, we shouldnt suck every year, we'll have our windows of opportunity if we are smart!" argument is fine in baseball. It is stupid in the NFL when you are stepping down from perfection.

The one time the Chiefs were really hurt by the cap was at the beginning of Vermeil's term. We had a bunch of dead money left over from bonehead moves like Dan Williams. Tennessee was probably the only team that was really, really hurt by salary cap problems earlier this decade.

That's utter bullcrap. It has never happened. The teams that put together dynasties have never done it by signing every all star free agent out there. At most, you're talking about a couple of players. The teams that did that built their teams through the draft, period.

Well first I dont buy into the "franchise QB is mandatory" theory myself, there have been super bowl teams who won in spite of their QB. A QB is important, but this isn't basketball where Kobe can lift your whole team from the depths. We've got 11 on offense, 11 on defense, a bunch for special teams, and important backups. Being able to keep Peyton Manning will not offset the impact of free agency.

Well, there you go. "Hey, Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl".

I think it would be just for the purpose of negotiations to avoid the lockout. After the new deal I would think the players would unionize again. I doubt they would give away their rights for collective bargaining forever.

Oh and btw, Unions Rock! :thumb:

I think the NFL would probably fare better than MLB because of the way the TV money works... in baseball it's all about the local TV money.

I'm not sure it would translate to winning because Jones and Snyder are stupid with their money sometimes. Teams that draft well can draft well. But I'd have to say it would drive up salaries overall, even if they were stupid contracts. Eventually you get to the point where the St. Louis Cardinals are now. They either have to pay Albert Pujols an unbelievable amount of money because of what the Yankees pay their best players... or let him walk and gut their team.

You seem to think that if a team can outspend the chiefs by a factor of 4, they shouldn't have any problem at all problem competing anyway in a world where free agency exists. At no significant recent point in NFL history have we had free agency, a huge gap in revenue by team, and no cap, so you can't point out a lot of good examples where your illogical hair-brained theory is true. Look at baseball before revenue sharing was dramatically increased, and look at freaking english soccer. The impact to small markets is provably devastating.

Your argument (perhaps not you, but your argument) is utterly stupid.

Would you argue that an individual player can have less, equal or greater impact on, say, an MLB team than an NFL team?

In other words, is the NFL more of a "team" sport than MLB?

If the salary cap disappears completely in the NFL you can bet that the even distribution of T.V. money will quickly follow.