Team Dedication

[Wi. Mike now in Florida]

I remember years ago team dedication to be a Packer seem important back then.

You feel the players still feel that way?

Today in the NFL seems like a business to players to go were the money is.

 

[Mondio]

none of them are playing for free, it's been a business for a long, long time

 

[gopkrs]

You gotta go where the money is. But most players have a special feeling for the fans and the teams that they played with. imho

 

[PackAttack12]

This is just the 2nd thread you've started this week. Everything alright?

 

[HardRightEdge]

I remember years ago team dedication to be a Packer seem important back then.

You feel the players still feel that way?

Today in the NFL seems like a business to players to go were the money is.

Before free agency, which was implemented in its current form in 1993, players didn't have a choice.

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

Back in my day if we got drafted to a team we stuck with em! No matter how much I hated my life I stuck it out! All this trying to make more money and better my life and my children's lives is nonsense! We were real men and suffered in silence!

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

This is just the 2nd thread you've started this week. Everything alright?

Also PackinMSP is MIA as well lol

 

[Mondio]

ha, never mind. I thought I was in the Josh Jones thread LOL

My mistake, i've erased it

 

[Wi. Mike now in Florida]

This is just the 2nd thread you've started this week. Everything alright?

Who's counting??

 

[AmishMafia]

I remember years ago team dedication to be a Packer seem important back then.

You feel the players still feel that way?

Today in the NFL seems like a business to players to go were the money is.

No, they never did. They had few options before free agency.

Who's counting??

PackAttack12

 

[rmontro]

At least it's not like the NBA (yet). The players are really running the league there, they seem to have a lot of power about where they want to play. The nature of the sport is different though. In basketball, a few stars on one team can dominate.

 

[G0P4ckG0]

At least it's not like the NBA (yet). The players are really running the league there, they seem to have a lot of power about where they want to play. The nature of the sport is different though. In basketball, a few stars on one team can dominate.

You are correct that the NBA players run their league and also that just a few stars on a team can dominate the league.

However, NBA rosters are about 80% smaller than NFL rosters. A few star NBA players on a team when converted to an NFL-sized roster would likely result in an impossibly dominant NFL team. Imagine such a team with ~15 truly *star* players. That is a scary thought...unless it's for the Packers. Luckily the NFL has a salary cap that provides parity and limits such mega-teams from being formed (a la Golden State Warriors).

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Luckily the NFL has a salary cap that provides parity and limits such mega-teams from being formed (a la Golden State Warriors).

The NFL's salary cap is a major reason the Packers have been able to stay competitive in the smallest market in the league while not having an owner with deep pockets.

 

[G0P4ckG0]

The NFL's salary cap is a major reason the Packers have been able to stay competitive in the smallest market in the league while not having an owner with deep pockets.

My point exactly

 

[gopkrs]

The NFL's salary cap is a major reason the Packers have been able to stay competitive in the smallest market in the league while not having an owner with deep pockets.

And the sharing of TV revenues. Cheers for Pete Rozelle.

 

[rmontro]

The NFL's salary cap is a major reason the Packers have been able to stay competitive in the smallest market in the league while not having an owner with deep pockets.

Well, the NBA has a salary cap too. I guess it's not as restrictive.
I definitely think there should be some sort of enforced parity, a rich owner shouldn't be able to just buy a championship.

I've never quite understood why the Packers wouldn't be able to compete though, considering they are one of the most popular franchises in the league. There must be some way of turning that into revenue (and Murphy's done a good job at it).

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Well, the NBA has a salary cap too. I guess it's not as restrictive.

I've never quite understood why the Packers wouldn't be able to compete though, considering they are one of the most popular franchises in the league. There must be some way of turning that into revenue (and Murphy's done a good job at it).

NBA teams are allowed to spend over the cap though. While they have to pay a luxury tax for doing so that doesn't prevent rich owners from doing so.

While the Packers were 10th in the league in revenue generated in 2017 they wouldn't be able to compete with teams having rich owners to sign free agents or retain their star players.

 

[AmishMafia]

Well, the NBA has a salary cap too. I guess it's not as restrictive.
I definitely think there should be some sort of enforced parity, a rich owner shouldn't be able to just buy a championship.

I've never quite understood why the Packers wouldn't be able to compete though, considering they are one of the most popular franchises in the league. There must be some way of turning that into revenue (and Murphy's done a good job at it).

Most of the revenue comes from TV revenue. If teams negotiated their own TV deals, the Packers would be fine. For now. But if they had a few bad years the decreased popularity and declining viewership would compound. Decreased income means decrease player spending means decrease success which means decreased viewership . . . . We would spiral out of existence.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Well, the NBA has a salary cap too. I guess it's not as restrictive.
I definitely think there should be some sort of enforced parity, a rich owner shouldn't be able to just buy a championship.

I've never quite understood why the Packers wouldn't be able to compete though, considering they are one of the most popular franchises in the league. There must be some way of turning that into revenue (and Murphy's done a good job at it).

I think the salary cap in the NBA includes a luxury tax if the cap is exceeded. So, yeah, a wealthy owner can buy championships. The NFL has a cap and that’s it, can’t exceed it. So it keeps the league in parity and makes it hard for a team to repeat (I’ll exclude the Pats, although it makes their six SB wins even more impressive.)

 

[rmontro]

The NFL has a cap and that’s it, can’t exceed it.

Tell that to the Broncos

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Most of the revenue comes from TV revenue. If teams negotiated their own TV deals, the Packers would be fine. For now.

I'm not convinced the Packers would be able to negotiate a lucrative TV deal compared to other teams in way larger markets.

 

[AmishMafia]

I'm not convinced the Packers would be able to negotiate a lucrative TV deal compared to other teams in way larger markets.

The Packers are usually one of the top 10 in TV draw. But they are more susceptible to downturns in success at drawing a national audience.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Tell that to the Broncos

I suppose that might be a joke. If you were going that way, you should have said "Falcons" who are currently $311,560 under the cap or "Vikings" who are $611,926 under the cap. The Brocos have $5+ mill in cap space.

The Falcons and Vikings will have to cut some guy or guys with some meaningful cap savings before the season starts to cover players 52 and 53 and the practice squad. If somebody goes to PUP or IR between now and the end of the season, that's more cap space that will have to be cleared.

For the record, to repeat, teams simply cannot be over the cap. The league reviews every contract. No contract will be approved if it puts a team over the cap.

 

[Mondio]

the Broncos were breaking cap rules in the 90's were fined a couple million bucks and lost some mid round draft picks for things they did to skirt the cap about the time they won 2 super bowls.

 

[RRyder]

NBA teams are allowed to spend over the cap though. While they have to pay a luxury tax for doing so that doesn't prevent rich owners from doing so.

While the Packers were 10th in the league in revenue generated in 2017 they wouldn't be able to compete with teams having rich owners to sign free agents or retain their star players.

I think the salary cap in the NBA includes a luxury tax if the cap is exceeded. So, yeah, a wealthy owner can buy championships. The NFL has a cap and that’s it, can’t exceed it. So it keeps the league in parity and makes it hard for a team to repeat (I’ll exclude the Pats, although it makes their six SB wins even more impressive.)

You guys using the NBA as an example of how a rich owner can buy a championship need to do a least the very minimum amount of research before saying it.

GS has assembled arguably the greatest roster of all time and will possibly win their 4th championship in 5 years all while being a small market team during a time when the Knicks (who have sucked for years), Bulls (who have had like 2 good years post Jordan) and the Lakers (who have sucked since Kobes legs went) have struggled.

Yes there's a salary cap that they can go over but you can only go over yo resign your own guys or certain mid level guys and even then theres a luxury tax that effectively works as a hard cap cause pretty much NO owner wants to pay it for more then a year or two due to how the tax escalates after a year or two.

In the end it still comes down to having management make smart decisions mixed with a lil luck

The real difference between the leagues is injuries dont cripple the stars which is why great teams stay great longer along with one game playoffs versus best of 7