No Salary Cap in NCAA; Only Pro Sport That Doesn't IS MLB

2,530 Views | 11 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by txag72
txag72
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Every major sport has a salary cap except for the MLB who does have a "Luxury Tax" which is also deemed a bit of a farce. Although you don't see the complete domination of franchises like you once did, very rarely do you not see the Yankees or Dodgers in the running for championships.

The fact that things are wide open with no limit to spending is absolutely going to ruin college athletics. You might as well go ahead and divide the teams up into 3 leagues with 10 each in league, 2 divisions each. Maybe that isn't so bad. But where else can it go without some kind of limits?
boredatwork08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The NCAA should have made the first move when all the talk about paying players started gaining traction. Allow the colleges to pay the players, set salary caps based on division and institute limitations on transfers or create standards for contracts that eliminate free agency.

A while ago I also had an idea of paying players a living stipend while putting their NIL in a trust only to be released after graduation, declaring for draft or a cool-off period if they drop out.

It's too late now, though. The NCAA is teetering on a legitimacy crisis. Any move now could push the big schools to do their own thing.
Player To Be Named Later
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wouldn't matter now. Prove that a team is going over an arbitrary "cap".

You can't. Teams will just go right on around it through boosters.
greg.w.h
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
txag72 said:

Every major sport has a salary cap except for the MLB who does have a "Luxury Tax" which is also deemed a bit of a farce. Although you don't see the complete domination of franchises like you once did, very rarely do you not see the Yankees or Dodgers in the running for championships.

The fact that things are wide open with no limit to spending is absolutely going to ruin college athletics. You might as well go ahead and divide the teams up into 3 leagues with 10 each in league, 2 divisions each. Maybe that isn't so bad. But where else can it go without some kind of limits?
There only can be a salary cap through collective bargaining.
DallasAg 94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
txag72 said:

Every major sport has a salary cap except for the MLB who does have a "Luxury Tax" which is also deemed a bit of a farce. Although you don't see the complete domination of franchises like you once did, very rarely do you not see the Yankees or Dodgers in the running for championships.

The fact that things are wide open with no limit to spending is absolutely going to ruin college athletics. You might as well go ahead and divide the teams up into 3 leagues with 10 each in league, 2 divisions each. Maybe that isn't so bad. But where else can it go without some kind of limits?
I'm not quite following you. MLB with no limits is going to ruin college athletics... football, baseball, basketball, et al?! Makes no sense.

There are Hard Caps, Soft Caps, and as you state a "Luxury Tax" or spending tax. There is also guaranteed and non-guaranteed money. A baseball player like Prince Fielder who signs a huge contract and then becomes unable to play... still gets paid. A QB that is highly paid may find himself poor and homeless because his non-guaranteed contract goes away.

The Yankees and Dodgers are usually in the running because they are usually well run organizations. San Diego and the NYMets... both in similar markets and both free-spenders... are not always running for Championships. You can't argue that the Cubs and White Sox aren't in great markets. But, I still don't know what that has to do with anything. Baseball is a weird animal.

The Dodgers and Yankees have generally been more succesfful when they develop their own talent and don't accumulate talent.

The correlation between Pro and "Amatuer" or "College" sports and what they get paid is going to impact how their audience views them. For sure.

However, a baseball player coming from HS or College will have 7+ years from entering the Pro system before they get contract freedom. Let that sink in.
txag72
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

MLB with no limits is going to ruin college athletics..
No. I was just saying that all the other sports have had the good sense to do that knowing what the outcome without it would be. It's so much more obvious who the have's and have nots are when it's universities. Private vs public, etc.


Quote:

The Dodgers and Yankees have generally been more succesfful when they develop their own talent and don't accumulate talent.

My perspective is much longer than yours going back to the '50's and before. Yankees and the very few others were also able to develop players because of more money for the minors etc., not just buy them and keep them.

Quote:


There only can be a salary cap through collective bargaining.
OK, and the reason the unions agree to it is because they also know it's needed. So, players, get a union and do what's best for YOUR level of sports.
greg.w.h
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
They agree to it via arms-length negotiation. And most deals share around 50% of media revenue with top pro league. The Div I share at $20 million for the top two leagues is a bit less than that.

The NCAA trying to leverage the settlement too agree to a collective number is cute.
ColoradoMooseHerd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DallasAg 94 said:

txag72 said:

Every major sport has a salary cap except for the MLB who does have a "Luxury Tax" which is also deemed a bit of a farce. Although you don't see the complete domination of franchises like you once did, very rarely do you not see the Yankees or Dodgers in the running for championships.

The fact that things are wide open with no limit to spending is absolutely going to ruin college athletics. You might as well go ahead and divide the teams up into 3 leagues with 10 each in league, 2 divisions each. Maybe that isn't so bad. But where else can it go without some kind of limits?

The Yankees and Dodgers are usually in the running because they are usually well run organizations. San Diego and the NYMets... both in similar markets and both free-spenders... are not always running for Championships. You can't argue that the Cubs and White Sox aren't in great markets. But, I still don't know what that has to do with anything. Baseball is a weird animal.

The Dodgers and Yankees have generally been more succesfful when they develop their own talent and don't accumulate talent.

1. San Diego is no way similar market to Los Angeles or New York. You realize they have lost the chargers, lost the clippers, lost every other franchise they have ever had. San Diego is not a real sports town. Mostly transplants that have never cared about the local teams and did not move there to follow sports.
2. New York Mets - the Mets are still a relatively young franchise. They have never had the brand equity of the Yankees and never will. The History of the Yankees is second to none and all the legends and hall of famers they have…… Mets will never compete with them. Hell the Dodgers and Giants could not compete with them so they went west.
3. The Cubs were completely mismanaged by the tribune and the loyal crowds of tourists and bleacher bums never cared if it was a winning product, so it never mattered. People *****ed and complained when they added lights and then later expanded the stadium, especially when they blocked out the view of the houses around the stadium. The people surrounding the stadium were selling tickets for more than in the stadiums. The crowds were small and only during the day. No one really cared if they won. New ownership tried to change that and did bring them a championship, but they still have a history of loveable losers.
4. The White Sox were ruined by the scandal, They were a powerhouse and a strong legacy that could have been built was thrown away. Also They are on the south side and not where the big money wants to be. Ownership should have moved the team probably. But there are not many places that really have the money that NYC and Los Angeles have.
5. Developed their own players. Yes the Yankees have developed some key players, but they are notorious for buying players and alway have. Babe Ruth, Reggie Jackson, Danny Tartabull (Seinfeld Fame), Dave Winfield, Roger Clemens, Alex Rodriguez, current players Stanton, Soto, etc. Everyone knows the Yankees can outspend anyone.
6. Same with the Dodgers, they buy players all the time. Mookie Betts, Freddie Freeman, Shoei Ohtani. They also had a good farm system, but they had the money to buy up all the players to keep in their farm system.
milner79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
greg.w.h said:

txag72 said:

Every major sport has a salary cap except for the MLB who does have a "Luxury Tax" which is also deemed a bit of a farce. Although you don't see the complete domination of franchises like you once did, very rarely do you not see the Yankees or Dodgers in the running for championships.

The fact that things are wide open with no limit to spending is absolutely going to ruin college athletics. You might as well go ahead and divide the teams up into 3 leagues with 10 each in league, 2 divisions each. Maybe that isn't so bad. But where else can it go without some kind of limits?
There only can be a salary cap through collective bargaining.

That day is closer than we think.
WestGalvestonAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's not sustainable. People will eventually lose interest watching the same handful of teams competing against each other in a league that's not at the top level of the sport. The novelty will eventually wear off. It's inevitable.
"I always thought Roy Acuff was probably an *******. I’m a Hank Williams fan."

-Steve Earle
greg.w.h
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
WestGalvestonAggie said:

It's not sustainable. People will eventually lose interest watching the same handful of teams competing against each other in a league that's not at the top level of the sport. The novelty will eventually wear off. It's inevitable.
The notion fans are partisan is true at the college and top pro levels. At the minor league level they are looking to be entertained by up-and-coming talent but might not be quite as partisan though there are diehards.

Remember the NCAA settlement notionally covers all sports but if there is parity then NIL will continue to live outside government or NCAA control.

As much as Tiyle IX served a purpose, it created very oddly warped professional leagues for women. That problem was being solved before the NCAA sanctioned women's sports in the early 1980s. And keep in mind the original WNBA also put modestly successful pro league or two out of business.

Money follows eyeballs. And corruption follows money…
txag72
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:


The NCAA trying to leverage the settlement too agree to a collective number is cute.
Who said anything about the NCAA?
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.