When the NFL implemented the salary cap in the 90's, the thought was that parity in the league would be restored and for a few years, that seemed to be the case.
A decade later, do we see parity in the NFL? No. The Patriots have become the Cowboys, the Eagles have become the Bills and the Colts are trying to be the 49ers. When a team wins 3 Super Bowls in 4 years, how can anyone suggest that there is parity?
In a league that Paul Tagliabue hoped would be full of 7-9, 8-8 and 9-7 teams, a team has gone 12-0, 6 have a winning percentage of .250 or below and an 11-5 record might not be enough to make the playoffs. It seems like the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' is still there.
In essence, what has happened is that the haves and have nots are no longer separated by cash flow and revenue but by "salary cap management". The teams who have not managed their caps are seeing how hard it can be to compete and the teams who have mastered it are continually flourishing. It does not matter that each team has the same amount of money to spend, what really matters is how much REAL money teams have.
Scott Pioli and the Patriots have shown to be the masters of the cap. They haven't signed any player except Tom Brady to long term deals, they don't structure contracts just to lower the cap number and they have parted ways with any player (Ty Law, Lawyer Milloy, Ted Washington) who they deemed to be too expensive. Most players are on 2-3 year contracts, and are very expendable.
The biggest hit on a cap these days has been "dead money" - which is the escalted cap hit a team takes when a player retires or is injured. The dead weight that a bad contract can put on a cap is so crippling, that some teams simply haven't been able to adjust. For example, the dead money was so damaging to the 49ers one year that they barely spent $20 million in salary and were still above the cap.
Of course, there is also luck involved. You can manage the cap terribly and still do well. The Colts signed Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison to huge contracts this summer. If Manning (or Harrison) has a career threatening injury, the salary cap hit that the Colts will take will be so large that they will either have to cut 5-6 high priced players or keep Manning on the roster to avoid the salary cap escalation. Any injury to Manning would hurt the Colts not only because they will have lost their leader, but also because they would be so financially crippled with dead money that it would take a couple of years to rebuild a team from scratch.
Having seen the benefits of proper cap management, a couple of teams tried to lure Scott Pioli from New England this year. Although Pioli remained in Foxboro, is it an indication that teams are starting to see the pitfalls of the cap and it is my belief that good general managers who can keep a proper perspective on the salary cap will someday be worth more than a good head coach - for every team except the Detroit Lions, of course.
A decade later, do we see parity in the NFL? No. The Patriots have become the Cowboys, the Eagles have become the Bills and the Colts are trying to be the 49ers. When a team wins 3 Super Bowls in 4 years, how can anyone suggest that there is parity?
In a league that Paul Tagliabue hoped would be full of 7-9, 8-8 and 9-7 teams, a team has gone 12-0, 6 have a winning percentage of .250 or below and an 11-5 record might not be enough to make the playoffs. It seems like the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' is still there.
In essence, what has happened is that the haves and have nots are no longer separated by cash flow and revenue but by "salary cap management". The teams who have not managed their caps are seeing how hard it can be to compete and the teams who have mastered it are continually flourishing. It does not matter that each team has the same amount of money to spend, what really matters is how much REAL money teams have.
Scott Pioli and the Patriots have shown to be the masters of the cap. They haven't signed any player except Tom Brady to long term deals, they don't structure contracts just to lower the cap number and they have parted ways with any player (Ty Law, Lawyer Milloy, Ted Washington) who they deemed to be too expensive. Most players are on 2-3 year contracts, and are very expendable.
The biggest hit on a cap these days has been "dead money" - which is the escalted cap hit a team takes when a player retires or is injured. The dead weight that a bad contract can put on a cap is so crippling, that some teams simply haven't been able to adjust. For example, the dead money was so damaging to the 49ers one year that they barely spent $20 million in salary and were still above the cap.
Of course, there is also luck involved. You can manage the cap terribly and still do well. The Colts signed Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison to huge contracts this summer. If Manning (or Harrison) has a career threatening injury, the salary cap hit that the Colts will take will be so large that they will either have to cut 5-6 high priced players or keep Manning on the roster to avoid the salary cap escalation. Any injury to Manning would hurt the Colts not only because they will have lost their leader, but also because they would be so financially crippled with dead money that it would take a couple of years to rebuild a team from scratch.
Having seen the benefits of proper cap management, a couple of teams tried to lure Scott Pioli from New England this year. Although Pioli remained in Foxboro, is it an indication that teams are starting to see the pitfalls of the cap and it is my belief that good general managers who can keep a proper perspective on the salary cap will someday be worth more than a good head coach - for every team except the Detroit Lions, of course.
