The NHL season ends before it even begins.

[RickJay]

@Airman Doors

There’s never been a requirement that teams spend a certain amount of money. Nonetheless, once salaries increase there is that expectation, which is why salary inflation occurs. If the increases don’t happen the way the players want them to happen that is enough evidence, in their minds, that the owners are holding out and can be sued for collusion.

They can try, but will lose. The only case of sports ownership losing a collusion case was the 1986-1987 collusion incident in baseball - which of course was due to the fact that almost NO premier free agents got contracts at all. Collusion was proven through behaviour relative to the complete lack of offers to free agents, not because teams were failing to approach a particular number.

After all, it doesn’t really mean squat to the players that Edmonton doesn’t pay out $45 million a year. The stars can go to Dallas or Colorado for the big bux. There is no illusion on either side that a salary cap affects all teams directly; it’s indirect in its effect on most teams.

It’s fine to say the upper limit is the target number but the fact remains that many teams are well below the cap now and will remain there. It’s simply not going to happen that Edmonton will start spending $45 million a year on salaries.

[EllisDee]

@RickJay

Well, okay; how many worst-to-first stories are there in the NFL? Does it really happen THAT often?

It happened twice in a year two times since 2000. As in, two different teams did it in a single year, and that has happened twice in the past five years. This is not counting the times that only a single team went from worst to first. So the answer is a resounding “yes”, it really does happen THAT often in the NFL.

For all the blather about the NFL’s parity, I have a trivia question for you; in the last twenty years, how many teams have won the Super Bowl the year after having a losing record (never mind even finishing LAST.) The answer, of course, is one; St. Louis.

You can’t measure parity during the pre-cap years, because (as I pointed out earlier) virtually all parity measures are negligable except the salary cap. So looking at the last 10 years, from memory, the Patriots also had a losing record in 2000, the year before they beat the Rams. Looking it up, not only did they have a losing record, but they went from dead last in the division at 5-11 to getting a first round bye from their division winning 13-3 record, going on to win the Superbowl.

The Ravens went 6-11 to 8-8 to winning the Superbowl, but obviously that doesn’t count as a losing record the year before. All other Superbowl winners had winning records the year before. However, if you also add in the Superbowl losers, the exhaustive list for the cap era becomes:

0. The Chargers went 8-8 the year before losing to the 49ers. (Not a losing record.)

1. The Patriots went 6-10 the year before losing to the Packers.

2. The Falcons went 6-10 the year before losing to the Broncos.

3. The Oilers went 8-8 the year before becoming the Titans and losing to the Rams. (Not a losing record.)

4. The Rams went 4-12 the year before beating the Titans.

5. The Giants went 7-9 the year before losing to the Ravens.

6. The Ravens went 8-8 the year before beating the Giants. (Not a losing record.)

7. The Patriots went 5-11 the year before beating the Rams.

8. The Panthers went 7-9 the year before losing to the Patriots. (And 1-15 the year before that!)

So in the cap era, I count 6 Superbowl teams with losing records the year before their Superbowl appearance, and 2 of those 6 won it. If you expand the criteria to “teams without a winning record” the year before, you get 9 teams with 3 of them winning.

I cannot help but notice that the New England Patriots have won the Super Bowl three of the last four years, and the league historically has gone through runs of dominance by a few critical teams. Much has been made of the fact that St. Louis won the Super Bowl a year after going 4-12, but in fact, bad teams becoming champions is exceedingly rare.

So exceedingly rare that it didn’t happen again for two whole years. Then it almost happened again two years later, but the Panthers were unable to hang on at the end.

The Patriots’ dynasty will hopefully result in another parity measure. Personally, I’m rooting for a completely separate, yet equally stringent, salary cap for coaches. We’ll see how important coaches really are next year when the Patriots deal with losing both coordinators.

MLB’s record on parity in the last five-seven years isn’t great, but frankly it’s no worse than the run the NFL had when a few NFC teams were winning the Super Bowl every year, and the NFL’s run of semi-flukey champions like Baltimore, St. Louis and Tampa Bay is no more impressive than MLB’s run of parity in the 1980s.

That run of NFC teams was pre-cap era. Since the cap, there has been much more turnover in the Superbowl teams. If you expand from championship teams to playoff teams, I’d bet the farm that the NFL’s parity is yet again demonstrably greater than MLB and the NHL.

Caps create parity. The NHL needs one.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@RickJay

They can try, but will lose. The only case of sports ownership losing a collusion case was the 1986-1987 collusion incident in baseball - which of course was due to the fact that almost NO premier free agents got contracts at all. Collusion was proven through behaviour relative to the complete lack of offers to free agents, not because teams were failing to approach a particular number.

Don’t be so sure.

[Last Week the Major League Baseball Players Association took the first step towards filing collusion charges against Major League Baseball and the owners. They claim that contracts offered to this year’s crop of free agents were unnaturally low and somewhat uniform across the board.

The definition of collusion is to intentionally plot with others to achieve a desired result - in this case the lowering of salaries. Twice in the past the Major League Players Association has filed collusion charges against baseball and the owners and both times baseball has settled with the players for a considerable amount of money.](http://www.athomeplate.com/collusion.shtml)

I underlined that part to emphasize that the players have, and can, sue over “unnaturally low” salaries. And that every time they do MLB settles with them. I suspect that MLB knows that they will lose the case, and worse, lose their (somewhat controversial) antitrust exemption.

If it can happen to MLB, it can most assuredly happen to the NHL. That’s a storm that they cannot afford to weather, even if they’re in the right.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

Speaking of breaking the law, I wanted to ensure that everyone was aware that the material in the link was quoted from here. I forgot to put the quote tags around it. Sorry.

[RickJay]

@Ellis Dee

It happened twice in a year two times since 2000. As in, two different teams did it in a single year, and that has happened twice in the past five years.

With respect to division champions, sure, that’s the case. They do seem to usually get creamed by the geniunely superior teams in the playoffs, though.

Of course, in retrospect, I missed the key difference between the NFL and other sports: they only play sixteen games. If MLB stopped the season after sixteen games you’d see higher turnover in that sport, too.

As of April 23 last year (the point at which the average team had played about 16 games; baseball teams have varied schedules so there’s no perfect date to pick) the “playoff” teams would have been Baltimore, Minnesota, Oakland, and either Boston or Chicago in the AL, and Florida, Chicago, Cincinnati and Los Angeles in the NL. At that point, the Yankees had a losing record. Only three of those teams actually ended up playing meaningful games in October. It’s simply to be expected that the NFL, barring some structure in place to KEEP the good teams good, really should always have more parity.

I agree the NHL needs a cap, but the NFL is not some all-perfect example. It has two significant advantages in achieving parity; the shorter schedule, which (like playoffs in baseball and hockey) tends to randomize things more, and the way its revenue is structured, which is vastly superior to any other pro league.

This is not counting the times that only a single team went from worst to first. So the answer is a resounding “yes”, it really does happen THAT often in the NFL.You can’t measure parity during the pre-cap years, because (as I pointed out earlier) virtually all parity measures are negligable except the salary cap. So looking at the last 10 years, from memory, the Patriots also had a losing record in 2000, the year before they beat the Rams. Looking it up, not only did they have a losing record, but they went from dead last in the division at 5-11 to getting a first round bye from their division winning 13-3 record, going on to win the Superbowl.

The Ravens went 6-11 to 8-8 to winning the Superbowl, but obviously that doesn’t count as a losing record the year before. All other Superbowl winners had winning records the year before. However, if you also add in the Superbowl losers, the exhaustive list for the cap era becomes:

0. The Chargers went 8-8 the year before losing to the 49ers. (Not a losing record.)

1. The Patriots went 6-10 the year before losing to the Packers.

2. The Falcons went 6-10 the year before losing to the Broncos.

3. The Oilers went 8-8 the year before becoming the Titans and losing to the Rams. (Not a losing record.)

4. The Rams went 4-12 the year before beating the Titans.

5. The Giants went 7-9 the year before losing to the Ravens.

6. The Ravens went 8-8 the year before beating the Giants. (Not a losing record.)

7. The Patriots went 5-11 the year before beating the Rams.

8. The Panthers went 7-9 the year before losing to the Patriots. (And 1-15 the year before that!)

So in the cap era, I count 6 Superbowl teams with losing records the year before their Superbowl appearance, and 2 of those 6 won it. If you expand the criteria to “teams without a winning record” the year before, you get 9 teams with 3 of them winning.So exceedingly rare that it didn’t happen again for two whole years. Then it almost happened again two years later, but the Panthers were unable to hang on at the end.

The Patriots’ dynasty will hopefully result in another parity measure. Personally, I’m rooting for a completely separate, yet equally stringent, salary cap for coaches. We’ll see how important coaches really are next year when the Patriots deal with losing both coordinators.That run of NFC teams was pre-cap era. Since the cap, there has been much more turnover in the Superbowl teams. If you expand from championship teams to playoff teams, I’d bet the farm that the NFL’s parity is yet again demonstrably greater than MLB and the NHL.

Caps create parity. The NHL needs one.
[/QUOTE]

[EllisDee]

@RickJay

With respect to division champions, sure, that’s the case. They do seem to usually get creamed by the geniunely superior teams in the playoffs, though.

Really? That’s why the Jets (twice!) and Eagles were such big underdogs, I suppose. In general, though, I concede that point. There were plenty of examples of outclassed teams in this past postseason.

Of course, in retrospect, I missed the key difference between the NFL and other sports: they only play sixteen games. If MLB stopped the season after sixteen games you’d see higher turnover in that sport, too.

[…]

I agree the NHL needs a cap, but the NFL is not some all-perfect example. It has two significant advantages in achieving parity; the shorter schedule, which (like playoffs in baseball and hockey) tends to randomize things more, and the way its revenue is structured, which is vastly superior to any other pro league.

I agree completely with the revenue angle. I would like the NHL to move in that direction as much as possible.

But you’re dreaming if you think the shorter schedule has anything at all to do with parity. Are you seriously saying that the NFL has always had parity? Because they never had a long schedule. In fact, it used to be shorter. So if your “shorter schedule” logic had any merit at all, the NFL would have always had parity.

The NFL never had parity, despite 60+ years of short schedules. Then they added parity measures like strength of schedule and draft order. Guess what? Both of those measures, coupled with a short schedule, produced no parity at all.

Then they instituted a cap, specifically pointing at the 49ers and saying “we do not want teams to be able to stockpile multiple hall of famers like Joe Montana and Steve Young, because that is an unfair advantage”.

So they instituted a cap. Within a few years, the NFL had achieved so much parity that many were calling it a bad thing. Instead of the long history of dynasties, we were suffering through league-wide mediocre play. Those detractors have been proven wrong, while parity has been demonstrated to be the greatest thing since sliced bread in the world of organized sports.

Disclaimer: Much of the cap’s success in creating parity relies on free agency. Really, it is the combination of the two that create parity. But all sports have free agency, and only the NFL has parity, so obviously free agency is up there with draft order in being ineffective on its own.

[RumMunkey]

The owners wanted protection from themselves.

D_Odds, as much as it pains me to disagree with my breatheren I must. Most owners are forced into coughing up drastically inflated contracts to compete with those few who seem to have endless money (I’m looking at you, Dolan!).

Look at it this way. Wang had no choice but to sign Yashin to that insane deal because complete fuckwads like Dolan drove up the market. That’s how we got here. In order to even come close to competing, you have to go into hawk.

Your choices are to peel off dollars you don’t have and hope to go deep enough in the payoffs to make something back or sputter through season after season with guys like Scott Scissons as your great white hope.

That said, //// LET’S GO ISLANDERS!

Hey, did you ever post over at MSG??

[Phelan]

@RickJay

The same as what??

The same as what the agreed upon salary cap would be. It doesn’t matter whether it’s 42.5, 45, or 49, having linkage kick in only when leaque revenues raise is BS, IMHO.