(05-02-2022 08:21 PM)94computerguy Wrote:  I think both of these things are true:
1) salary caps are intended to keep a lid on salaries so that the owners can make more money
2) some owners would just spend whatever they wanted, and those would make for less competition.

In the NFL, all the income (aside from skyboxes) is shared with the league and/or comes in through TV deals and is shared equally. So the cap exists to keep salaries down, but if you got rid of the cap, the Packers could still spend 80% of what the Cowboys could spend.

In the NBA, I don't know how they do it, but the books are open (I think?) and the salary cap is set at 50% of total revenue. So the number floats, but the money goes to the players. That's pretty good, and it also means you can't just spend a billiion on the Lakers and have them run roughshod over everyone.

Really, the entire NCAA has had a salary cap of "free college", which no matter how you slice it, it's too low. Look at 100k people in The Big House, and tell me the school's not making a fortune off of them.

I say the players should take the money. If someone wants to pay you $10M to play for Clemson, take the deal if you want. I hope that conferences come up with some boundaries so that it doesn't turn into just a $ arms race, but it's not like JMU was ever going to be competitive with the SEC anyway. And they shouldn't be - the SEC *is* an NFL minor league. Let them - that's fine. But as long as the level of talent is comparable among a conference, that's fine.

80%?

This is from a year ago, but even at #9 Green Bay has half the revenue and 20% of the profit (operating income) of Dallas. For the bottom of the NFL it's even worse since so much of the additional revenue is cheddar. Jerry Jones might be a great business man, but he sucks sh1t managing a football team. Thanks to the cap he can't buy his way out of his stupidity.

In the P5 the disparity is even greater because their limited revenue sharing is less equitable than the NFL (schools don't evenly share donations, etc). Texas has more than 3x the revenue of an Iowa State team they lost to 3 years in a row.

Does anyone have any doubt that wealthy boosters wouldn't exponentially increase donations if it meant the could "buy" top talent? Right now a lot of elite players go to lesser SEC and Big 10 teams cause they want to play. But think how many would go to Texas or Ohio State, even if it potentially meant sitting on the bench for a couple years, if they could make $100k more a year than they could at Ole Miss or Michigan State?

1. Dallas Cowboys - Revenue: $980 million; Operating Income: $425 million
2. New England Patriots - Revenue: $630 million; Operating Income: $250 million
3. New York Giants - Revenue: $547 million; Operating Income: $168 million
4. Houston Texans - Revenue: $530 million; Operating Income: $165 million
5. San Francisco 49ers - Revenue: $530 million; Operating Income: $120 million

9. Green Bay Packers - Revenue: $485 million; Operating Income: $88 million

28. Buffalo Bills - Revenue: $413 million; Operating Income: $73 million
29. Detroit Lions - Revenue: $411 million; Operating Income: $43 million
30. Cincinnati Bengals - Revenue: $397 million; Operating Income: $60 million
31. Los Angeles Chargers - Revenue: $392 million; Operating Income: $75 million
32. Las Vegas Raiders - Revenue: $383 million; Operating Income: $33 million