fazzle 0 Report post Posted January 19, 2004 This is exactly what I'm talking about. The "America's Team" thing is what makes the Cowboys great. You either love them or hate them; there is no middle ground. You either watch to see them win, or you watch to see them lose. Unless they're playing another team you hate. Then you just watch Sportscenter to see if anyone got hurt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted January 19, 2004 Or convicted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted January 19, 2004 Well didn't they just recently put a salary cap on the NFL? Hasn't it gotten much better since then? The salary cap has been in place for a decade. Or, to put it another way, when these so-called "dynasties" were happening. Since the salary cap, no team has even been to more than 3 Super Bowls (Dallas), and no teams besides Dallas and Denver have won even two. In fact, since 1991, there have been ten different Super Bowl winners in 14 years. In my opinion, the NFL hasn't really had a down period until now, just because there's TOO MUCH parity. Dynasties can be good for sport -- look at the Chicago Bulls. A bunch of mediocre-to-good teams fighting for a league championship isn't what the public wants to see. They want to see truly great play, and that can only come from truly great teams. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JHawk 0 Report post Posted January 19, 2004 I forgot about the Browns... seems like they never left. In the hearts of their fans, they never did. If Art Modell wasn't the only man capable of taking the most popular sports franchise anywhere and bankrupting them then they wouldn't have. So the worst era in sports was the NFL from 1996-98. No Browns? Why should I give a fuck? And by the way: parity is a good thing. The Patriots making two Super Bowls in three years because they get four or five lucky bounces every fucking game isn't. The Patriots take the expression "It's better to be lucky than good" to a whole new level. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted January 19, 2004 NFL since about 1999. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mole 0 Report post Posted January 19, 2004 This is exactly what I'm talking about. The "America's Team" thing is what makes the Cowboys great. You either love them or hate them; there is no middle ground. You either watch to see them win, or you watch to see them lose. I only watch the Cowboys when I am forced too. When they were in the NFC Championship games, I watched because I wanted to watch football. The Cowboys aren't "America's Team" it is just a marketing tool. And how is that a good thing? How is it good that the defending champion doesn't get back to the playoffs the next year? I love how no team in the NFL is dominate right now. You could watch any game, and it could turn out to be a great one. Who would have thought that the Panthers would be going to the Super Bowl? I hate to use a wrestling analogy, but I will. WWE is the most popular wrestling federation in the world. I think it's safe to say that it's currently in a bad era. Popularity of a sport has nothing to do with how good/bad an era it's in.... How is the NFL in a bad era right now? Last week, all 4 playoff games were close games that were fun to watch. One thing about the NFL is that the league doesn't sell itself on one player being the man, but teams themself. The NBA needs a star players to keep the league going, and the NHL just plain old sucks. Baseball looked like it was going to be saved with the potential Cubs/Sox World Series, but that went down the drain. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfaJack 0 Report post Posted January 19, 2004 I only watch the Cowboys when I am forced too. When they were in the NFC Championship games, I watched because I wanted to watch football. The Cowboys aren't "America's Team" it is just a marketing tool. You're right - it is a marketing tool, and it's a damned good one, too. There aren't too many fans who have neutral feelings about the Cowboys. Most people either think it's great or it's completely arrogant and cheer/boo accordingly. You must be one of the exceptions. I love how no team in the NFL is dominate right now. You could watch any game, and it could turn out to be a great one. Who would have thought that the Panthers would be going to the Super Bowl? Right, who WOULD have thought the Panthers would be in the Super Bowl? And how many people actually give a shit? The Panthers are an average team playing in a league full of them. Put them against most any other Super Bowl winner from the '90s and they'd probably get destroyed. There isn't much to get excited about. With dynasty teams like the Cowboys or Niners, people have more interest, plain and simple. The general opinions expressed in this thread seem to disagree with your stance as well. How is the NFL in a bad era right now? Last week, all 4 playoff games were close games that were fun to watch. Hmmm...let's see. A "close" game doesn't always mean a "good" game. Green Bay/Philly - ugly game; neither team played all that well, and both did their best to give the game away before the Pack was successful in doing so. Carolina/St. Louis - even uglier game. The repeated ineptitude in the overtime by both teams was a big black eye. Indy/Kansas City - NO defense of any sort. If you like seeing 38-31 games, well, more power to you, but just once I'd like to see someone show up and make ANY sort of defensive play. And that game wasn't as close as the score would indicate. Without the Hall kickoff return, the Chiefs pretty much get blown out. Tennessee/NE - I'll give you this one. It was a great game. Shit, this weekend's games weren't all that great. The Colts generally played like crap, and the Patriots made way too many mistakes to count it as a "great" win. Carolina/Philly was awful; enough said. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red Baron 0 Report post Posted January 19, 2004 Right now, the NFL stands for "Not for Long" because you can't stay on top for long I thought it was called the No Fun League. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted January 19, 2004 Ok so if the salary cap has been in affect for that long then why the hell did all the games suddenly start getting better lately and the "anyone can win" thing start up now? What changed it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
USC Wuz Robbed! 0 Report post Posted January 19, 2004 Because most teams NOW can't afford big-time contracts. Hell the Buccaneers this offseason can't really afford Warren Sapp. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2004 The salary cap is the biggest thing wrong with football right now. There's tons of roster turnover every year. People pine for the gool ol' days of sports when players stuck with teams their entire years, yet they praise this type of system. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2004 I've learned so much. But I still say that I don't like the days when you knew who was going to win the SuperBowl and you were just trying to figure out who was going to get beat by them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2004 NHL - 1994 - Present. First the strike, then the trap killed this league. MLB - 1994 - Present. MLB & the NHL have basically mirrored each other. First a strike, then ballooning player salaries, a lack of parity, and a game changing element (in this case, the large number of HRs) made the game itself less exciting. NFL - Early-Mid 1980s. This was the period of labour strife in the NFL, and the transition period from the great 70s & 90s eras. Things were getting better by the time the Niners won their 3rd Super Bowl, and the greatest team of all time (the 1985 Chicago Bears) helped reduce the damage somewhat. NBA - 1998 - Present. The NBA built themselves around a single star (Michael Jordan) and when he retired after the Bulls final championship, the league could never hope to replace him. Today's game is dull as dishwater, and the West is so stacked, that the Finals aren't even competitive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2004 The salary cap is the biggest thing wrong with football right now. There's tons of roster turnover every year. People pine for the gool ol' days of sports when players stuck with teams their entire years, yet they praise this type of system. This exists in MLB too. I can barely remember who is on who's team anymore. It is far worse in MLB among the name players. In the NFL, at least I can identify Brett Favre, Peyton Manning, Randy Moss, Steve McNair, etc with their various teams. You don't see NFL teams dumping off the best player in the game because they can't afford him like you do with A-Rod, they simply cut a bunch of less well-known players to make room for the big name guy. I would rather see 100 Vonnie Holliday's jump ship, than one Brett Favre. The two leagues that have the most player movement are the NHL & MLB, the two that happen to not have salary caps. The salary cap is needed otherwise Dan Snyder will just sign up all the talent. The players will still move in large numbers, just all to one or two teams instead of several. It will happen as long as free agency exists. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2004 The salary cap is the biggest thing wrong with football right now. There's tons of roster turnover every year. People pine for the gool ol' days of sports when players stuck with teams their entire years, yet they praise this type of system. Course back in the early 90's when people were staying with their team for long periods of time you had good old Deon Sanders jumping sleeping with the 2 super bowl teams(Cowboys and 49ers). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bored 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2004 The salary cap is the biggest thing wrong with football right now. There's tons of roster turnover every year. People pine for the gool ol' days of sports when players stuck with teams their entire years, yet they praise this type of system. Course back in the early 90's when people were staying with their team for long periods of time you had good old Deon Sanders jumping sleeping with the 2 super bowl teams(Cowboys and 49ers). Yes and that was when the salary cap started. Deion signed with the 49ers four games into the season in '94 for a low salary just to win a championship. He was a free agent after this season so he signed with Dallas. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Olympic Slam Report post Posted January 20, 2004 I think this thread is kind of silly because most of the posters here (myself included) are under 30 and don't have enough sports watching experience to really compare eras to one another. However, I agree with Anglesault's earlier comment about the MLB sucking pretty hard from 1994-the present. 1. Expansion + drugs + new training methods = too many runs per game. When an ERA over 3.00 is considered "All-Star caliber," something is seriously wrong. 2. Too many players switching teams. Its impossible to rally behind teams anymore because every year half the team is either traded or moves to free agency. Nobody cheers for players anymore, just different colored uniforms; how lame. As an Oakland A's "fan", yes I used fan in quotes because I can't follow the team anymore because it seems like every season the team roster is changed and its next to impossible to so much as care about the team. I miss the old days when players stayed with their teams for most of their careers and groups of players stayed together for more than two seasons. Even well off teams like the Yankees and Braves seem to "reboot" heavily after every season. Its a disgrace. 3. Interleauge Play - It has cheapend the World Series and I feel it got very stale four years ago. I don't mind an annual local match-up between Mets-Yanks or A's-Giants, but do we really need Mariners-Diamondbacks? The Yankees only came to Oakland ONCE last year. That's unacceptable, especially when Wild Card and Division match-ups matter so much. 4. Fluke Champs - I hate parity in sports. I like to see strong, dominant teams that stay together for more than one season. This gives the leauge more identity. With the exception of the Yankees and Braves, most other teams in the leauge are completely faceless. The amount of line-up swapping in recent years have led to one-shot champs like the 2002 Angels, 1997 Marlins, and 2001 Diamondbacks. I want strong dynasties like the 88'-92 A's, 92-94 Blue Jays, the 95'-present Yankees and the 91-present Braves. I have more complaints, but I just don't pay as much attention to baseball as I once did. Neither does my dad who used to be as big of a baseball fan as you could imagine. What a shame. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2004 1. Expansion + drugs + new training methods = too many runs per game. When an ERA over 3.00 is considered "All-Star caliber," something is seriously wrong. Offense is declining. Check out the National League Now, and the National League Three Years Ago. Offense has dropped from 5.00 runs per game to 4.61. 2. Too many players switching teams. Its impossible to rally behind teams anymore because every year half the team is either traded or moves to free agency. Nobody cheers for players anymore, just different colored uniforms; how lame. As an Oakland A's "fan", yes I used fan in quotes because I can't follow the team anymore because it seems like every season the team roster is changed and its next to impossible to so much as care about the team. I miss the old days when players stayed with their teams for most of their careers and groups of players stayed together for more than two seasons. Even well off teams like the Yankees and Braves seem to "reboot" heavily after every season. Its a disgrace. Most teams have core players around for several seasons. The A's have smartened up and realized that most players hit the decline phase after free agency, so they keep bringing up cheap, young players instead. Free agency has changed the game, as well as every other sport. To expect a team to have its full lineup together for several seasons is unrealistic. 3. Interleauge Play - It has cheapend the World Series and I feel it got very stale four years ago. I don't mind an annual local match-up between Mets-Yanks or A's-Giants, but do we really need Mariners-Diamondbacks? The Yankees only came to Oakland ONCE last year. That's unacceptable, especially when Wild Card and Division match-ups matter so much. I dislike interleague play and especially the unbalanced schedule as well, but is it really enough to turn someone from the game entirely. Would you have benefitted from seeing the AL Central more often? 4. Fluke Champs - I hate parity in sports. I like to see strong, dominant teams that stay together for more than one season. This gives the leauge more identity. With the exception of the Yankees and Braves, most other teams in the leauge are completely faceless. The amount of line-up swapping in recent years have led to one-shot champs like the 2002 Angels, 1997 Marlins, and 2001 Diamondbacks. I want strong dynasties like the 88'-92 A's, 92-94 Blue Jays, the 95'-present Yankees and the 91-present Braves. The fault lies with the expanded playoffs, and the wild card. I'm a believer that there should only be four teams, and you should win your division to make it. The Marlins have won the World Series twice, and have never won the division. Yes, that is wrong. And before anyone accuses me of sour grapes, that would've taken the Phillies out of the race entirely as well. I agree with you on that point, except with the 2001 Diamondbacks. They had championship caliber pitching, and health was the only question in previous and succeeding years, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2004 They should just dump the divisions entirely and just go back to two leagues, with the two pennant winners going at it in the World Series. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Bottled Black Report post Posted January 21, 2004 NHL - 1994 - Present. First the strike, then the trap killed this league. Thank God someone else said this. That friggin Neutral Zone Trap killed this sport. Thanks a lot Jaques Lemaire. I mean the sport is struggling to get more fans, I don't think 2-1, 1-0 games are gonna bring in more fans. I wanna see 6-5 games, I'm sorry watching constant turnovers in the Neutral Zone is not exciting. Goals are exciting. Having a player scoring 92 goals in a year is exciting not having someone win the scoring title with 50 goals if they're lucky. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bored 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2004 It had been mentioned the NBA's worst era business wise, the late 70s, but holy shit playing wise today's era is just horrible. I can't sit through an NBA game all the way through anymore, unless I'm actually at the game of course. No one can shoot anymore, at least not American players, and I'm not even sure if the NBA and its coaches even give a shit because its amazing to me how bad it has got. And its not better defense because go back to the Bad Boys Pistons who beat the shit of their opponents for 48 minutes but they still gave up just over 100 points a game (and the led the league in that category) because when their opponent got a rare open shot, they'd *gasp* make it! It is just astounding to me that its so hard for most of the league now to score 100 points when it used to be only the worst teams in the league couldn't crack 100 a game. My god tonight I see the current Pistons, a team that was on a 13 game winning streak, score 69 points tonight!!! How the fuck does an NBA team, especially a good one (by East standards), score 69 points? Were they even trying? I don't care how good of defense the Pacers play that is just pathetic. And the sad thing is its now a fairly common thing for a team to score that few of points. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red Baron 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2004 NHL - 1994 - Present. First the strike, then the trap killed this league. Thank God someone else said this. That friggin Neutral Zone Trap killed this sport. Thanks a lot Jaques Lemaire. I mean the sport is struggling to get more fans, I don't think 2-1, 1-0 games are gonna bring in more fans. I wanna see 6-5 games, I'm sorry watching constant turnovers in the Neutral Zone is not exciting. Goals are exciting. Having a player scoring 92 goals in a year is exciting not having someone win the scoring title with 50 goals if they're lucky. The odd thing is that Lemaire brought the exact same system as the Habs from the 70's of their exact style. Though the 70's Habs had a much better depth roster, didn't take much up on the ice, and the goal line was moved back 2 feet each side, making the offencive zone back then bigger, harder to use. One of the main reasons Habs were pretty much unstoppable (as well as Ken Dryden) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2004 The size of the goalies pads have really hurt scoring. Compare a goalie today, with one 20 years ago. The NBA's biggest problem is teams don't take enough shots. Instead of close to 100, it's maybe around 80. That can blamed on coaches. Who have to get their fingerprints on every aspect of a game plan. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mole 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2004 The salary cap is the biggest thing wrong with football right now. There's tons of roster turnover every year. People pine for the gool ol' days of sports when players stuck with teams their entire years, yet they praise this type of system. Course back in the early 90's when people were staying with their team for long periods of time you had good old Deon Sanders jumping sleeping with the 2 super bowl teams(Cowboys and 49ers). Yes and that was when the salary cap started. Deion signed with the 49ers four games into the season in '94 for a low salary just to win a championship. He was a free agent after this season so he signed with Dallas. Ugh, I HATED it when Deion would jump teams like that. Especially since I am a Niners fan, then he would go to the team I hate the most, Cowboys. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2004 So I understand that players won't stay with teams in the NFL these days thus making teams good one year and bad the next. But if the salary cap didn't cause this.......then what did? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mole 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2004 All I have to say is every Sunday I turn on football and I enjoy just about every game, that is all that matters to me. It is even better when the Niners and Pats win every week, but that doesn't always happen. Oh wait, the Pats are in the SB... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tom 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2004 So I understand that players won't stay with teams in the NFL these days thus making teams good one year and bad the next. But if the salary cap didn't cause this.......then what did? It did. Every offseason, dozens of perfectly good players are relased because they're too expensive. Every offseason, dozens more players restructure their contracts so that the team can afford to keep them and a few other important guys around. (The Colts are going to have to do this with Peyton Manning very soon, btw.) Long-term contracts in the NFL are basically a joke. A player will sign a contract that's lauded as a "7-year, $50 million contract" by the media. The thing is, $14 million of that is a signing bonus, payable over all 7 years under the salary cap rules. Then the player's salary structure is $3m, $4m, and $5m for the first three years, with the remaining $24m coming in the last two years. The cap numbers are then $5m, $6m, and $7m for the first 3 years, then the player either gets released or his deal gets restructured. That does oversimplify the system a bit, but that's the crux of how it works. None of those years are guaranteed, and sometimes they're even called "voidable option years." I don't even pay attention to "big" contracts in football anymore, because they're invariably back-loaded like that so that teams can get out of them. When Drew Bledsoe got traded to the Bills, a lot of people said, "OMG he has a $100m contract!" True, he does. However, his salary for the first three years he'd spend in Buffalo was about $6m per year, then the insane money hit. It stands to reason that Bledsoe will either be released or his contract greatly restructured before that happens. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted January 21, 2004 So I understand that players won't stay with teams in the NFL these days thus making teams good one year and bad the next. But if the salary cap didn't cause this.......then what did? Look at the Browns if you want to see why the salary cap sucks. They finally build a team that makes the playoffs and then have to completely tear the team apart because they don't have the cap room to keep it on the field. Fans had to sit through 2 horrible seasons and a season where they were screwed over in several games before getting a taste and then they have to wait so the team can rebuild again. It royally sucks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cartman 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2004 Why can the Pats remain one of the top teams for so long then? Yea it's only been the past 3 years really but they are set up for about 3 more years without having to worry about losing anyone real important. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted January 21, 2004 Milloy was a cap move though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
