That many players in the NFL make more than the payroll cap for CFL teams. What’s difficult to understand about that?
Let me try and put it into more explicit terms. In a free market, in which high caliber players play for teams that are able to pay them more, the fact that the NFL has 30 teams that can pay players more than the entire CFL team salary cap suggests that they will have most, if not all, of the high caliber players. There are twenty quarterbacks in the NFL that have [2008 cap value] salaries higher than the CFL team salary cap. There are eleven running backs in the NFL that have [2008 cap value] salaries higher than the CFL team salary cap. There are twenty-three wide receivers in the NFL that have [2008 cap value] salaries higher than the the CFL team salary cap. Seeing a trend?
I didn’t say I didn’t understand you. I just find the fact that some NFL players make much more money than the CFL salary cap moot, your long-winded “explicit” description of each position salaries seems to support what we’ve all been saying, that it would be a one sided game.
FTR The NFL is not a free market, but I’m sure you’ll try to argue that it is…Ho hum.
I think Sparky812 is misreading the statistic as some NFL players getting paid more than the CFL players are permitted to be paid; it is, AFAICT from what was said, actually the case that some individual players in the NFL earn more than an entire CFL team.
That is actually the case, yes, but Sparky has understood that from the beginning. For unknown reasons, he took issue with the strawman that the average NFL salary isn’t larger than the full-team cap in the NFL, which is not what was claimed.
He then went on to say the fact that some NFL players make more than whole CFL teams is irrelevant. Then he contradicted himself by admitting that this is, in fact, an illustration of the huge disparity between the leagues. Which it is. That’s what makes his objections so bizarre.
And he chose to do all this in a very belligerent manner.
Sorry, if I sound belligerent but it was late at night and I was a tired.
FTR at the beginning of this thread I made a couple of generalizations to simplify a CFL/NFL matchup to the OP and, instead of expanding or clarifying what was stated, Cerowyn chose to nitpick. Why challenge my CFL knowledge instead of contributing to the thread?
For example,
… that’s like saying “during childbirth a baby is born.”
This may have been a great discussion on how both leagues evolved parallel to each other but…
I had to elaborate on my use of the word “most” yet Cerowyn issues a broad statement such as this? Other than the awkward wording, don’t you see the problems with this sentence? And why not google the CFL salary cap?
I am assuming what Cerowyn meant to say was.
“There are many NFL players salaries greater than the CFL salary cap of $4.2 million, therefore it is unlikely that a CFL team would be able to compete with an NFL team.”
Which is false, although there may be “little chance” they would win, and it may be a blow out, but they would definitely compete.
If Cerowyn believes player’s salaries are tantamount, then why not say the CFL has no chance at all?
The salary argument was moot once it was agreed the best players were in the NFL, or as I stated CFL players just weren’t quite good enough. Also the average NFL salary is a far better indicator of the economies of scale, between the two leagues, than Cerowyn’s statement.
Finally, the logic behind equating greater salaries with players abilities and the outcome of a football game is flawed in many ways. Ask the Yankees or Las Vegas
No, I don’t see any problems with Cerowyn’s wording. It is not awkward. And it says the exact same thing as your rewording.
Only by the most contrived definition could a vastly outmatched team “compete.” Technically they would be able to take the field, which means they’d be part of the competition. But the widely accepted definition of being “able to compete” is to have a reasonable chance of winning. They would not, making the claim that there would be “little chance of being competitive” completely accurate.
The huge salary imbalance is an excellent way to illustrate the competitive imbalance. Your counter-example of the Yankees is flawed because their payroll does give them a competitive advantage. Year in and year out, the lower salary teams simply cannot compete. Every once in a while an underfunded squad can bubble up, but their time at the top will invariably be short-lived. That’s why it is correct to say they can’t compete even if they win a couple times.
Consider a trick coin that lands tails 9 times for every 1 head. You and I use this coin to wager, both betting $1 per flip, I get tails. Despite the fact that you’ll hit one out of every 10 times, you cannot compete with me. I will dominate the game, as predicted. It won’t be competitive.
As for why not google the exact cap number, the exact cap number doesn’t matter to the point being made. And it was properly qualified with “IIRC.” (If I remember correctly.)
No, I don’t see any problems with Cerowyn’s wording. It is not awkward. And it says the exact same thing as your rewording.
QUOTE]
It should I paraphrased it!
We could go on arguing semantics, but in the end, I think we all agree , it would be an NFL victory and I stand by my initial post.