Is the NFL "better" since the salary cap?

[JasonC23]

I hate dynasties, and I love dynasties. Let me explain (and I apologize if I'm just repeating what's already been said).

In the here and now, the present, the immediate, I hate dynasties. I like seeing teams come out of nowhere, then next year seeing new teams come out of nowhere. I like seeing the 2001 Bears, of which nothing was expected, go 13-3 and make the playoffs for the first time in years. I like seeing the 1999 Rams, 2000 Ravens, and 2001 Patriots come out of nowhere and win the Super Bowl. Unpredictability is great during the present season. I mean, I love baseball, but (shock! gasp!) the Yankees and Braves are in first again and have the best records in their respective leagues. It's much more fun as a fan to get geared up for the latest White Sox/Royals game (whodda thunk it??) than seeing another stupid first-place Yankees team roll into town.

On the other hand...when looking over the history of a sport, I love dynasties. Two of my favorites books are "Baseball Dynasties" (by Rob Neyer and Eddie Epstein), which describes and ranks the 15 greatest baseball dynasties of all time, and "Dominance" (by Eddie all by himself), which ranks the 12 greatest football teams of all time (single season, yes, but all of the teams are in the middle of really good runs). I love rereading these books because they draw to mind such legendary teams, teams for which just simply saying the year and the team name makes us all nod in awe (the 1927 Yankees, the 1975 Big Red Machine, the 1979 Steelers, the 1985 Bears). As others have said, dynasties are a great tool to measure your team's present ability and place in history against. Going back to my previous paragraph, yes, I loved seeing the 2001 Patriots win the Super Bowl...but it was much more meaningful because it came against the 2001 Rams, they of the legendary offense and Super Bowl win just 2 years earlier (just as the 2002 Angels had to beat the Yankees to win it all). If the Patriots had beaten, say, the 2001 Eagles, would it have been nearly as meaningful of an upset?

So, basically, in the here and now, not having dynasties in football (and having them in baseball) wins points for me for football. But, when we look back at the late 1990s/early 2000s years from now, what will we remember? The "legendary" 2001 Patriots, or those amazing Yankees? So baseball wins in terms of history.

Basically, what I'm saying is, I love both sports for what they offer, even though I wish they both had a little more of what the other has (more unpredictability in baseball, more dynasties in football).

[Leonidas]

I consider myself "old school" and never loved the NFL more than when I was a kid in the 70's. Still, I like the NFL financial system. I wish baseball was similar. Where I think quality lags does not stem from finances. Actually, I think the game benefits from the finances.

Where I think the game lags is the way players are used. Back in the 70's units like The Steel Curtain or Doomsday Defense didn't swap out every other play or change the front 7 for a passing down. Jack Lambert was so great because he was as good a pass defender at MLB as he was run stopper. I doubt he took off more than 10 plays an entire game, ever (unless he was thrown out for fighting). Granted, he wasn't the steroid grown behemoth today's players are, but he was a far more all around skilled player than any MLB (with the possible exception of Urlacher who can pass cover) today.

Players weren't the physical specimans they are today, but they played the whole game and played with more skill. They also don't tackle today like they used to. Hardly anyone wraps up a runner with their arms. They fly in with a shoulder or try to trip a guy. Little things like that are lacking skill.

[tucker342]

I love how the NFL manages their league. It's by far the best run league in America if not the world...

[Tex Schramm]

I'm not a guru on salary caps or financial minutiae of any sport, though I do know enough to somewhat understand why teams make some of the moves they do.
Football's by far my favorite sport (I'm from Dallas), but in my opinion the financial system in the NBA makes for a much more exciting offseason than the other sports, with the possible exception of the NHL.
Teams in the NBA always seem to have a certain degree of financial flexibility that teams in other sports don't have. You see the best and most successful teams in the West all making major deals and improving their rosters this summer, as opposed to the NFL where you often see successful teams either unable to improve themselves or forced to get rid of good players for cap reasons. The Ravens probably brought in a bunch of new fans as a result of their championship season, only for those people to see their team completely dismantled in less than two years.
While it's true that parity in the NBA is not nearly on par with that of the NFL, teams in basketball overall are much closer to one another in talent level than teams are in baseball. Also, you still see big signings of marquee free agents, a la Jason Kidd. The last really big free-agent signing of a player in his prime I can remember was the Deion Sanders deal (but that might be because of my Dallas bias). If teams are unable to score big in free agency, they can always use players in the last year of their contracts as real trade value to acquire a big-name player. That means that even if your team has no money under the cap, there's still hope of a move that will improve the roster. And if trades aren't possible, there are always the mid and lower-level cap exceptions. This offseason has proven that those cap exceptions allow veterans to play until they're completely "used up", so to speak (i.e. Karl Malone, Scottie Pippen, Alonzo Mourning).
Guaranteed contracts obviously have their disadvantages too--it's awfully frustrating seeing Shawn Bradley and Raef Lafrentz eat up all that cap space for the Mavericks when they do just about as much as any 7-footer in the world could against the big men in the West. But it still allows for all the interesting trade activity that, for me, makes the sport much more interesting in between seasons (and all the way up to the trade deadline). Trading is a lost art in the NFL.
Plus, with all the loading up the best teams in the West are doing, you still see young teams up-and-coming who have built primarily through the draft and have shown the ability to compete with the best teams (Houston and Phoenix).
Anyway sorry for the length and rambling--hope it makes sense.

[Karim]

Originally posted by SunDancer
Plus, the CFL being change to American Football, might not worked too well in Canada. Prolly kill a fanbase, and might damage the NFL's rep in Canada.

Combining Toronto and Vancouver (population over 7 million), you've got maybe 50,000 CFL fans MAX. NFL fans in those two markets are probably well over two million. Buffalo and Seattle especially have followers in both markets.

Yes, the CFL has been around since 1909, limping along as it always has. History and tradition are its strong points; league management is not.