There's nothing fuzzy about it. When free agency was unabated 4 teams ruled the NFL with the loan exception being the year's Chicago's 46 ruled. 4 teams split 11 Super Bowls over a 12 year period because there was no cap and the rest of the league couldn't afford to compete with them. It's nbt fuzzy at all, I'm basing my argument exactly on what Rozelle and Rooney did, it's the argument they used to seel the cap to the owners and players, sorry if you don't like it but you not liking it doesn't make it fuzzy.
It's not a miniscule slice of time, it's over 1/4 of the entire post merger history of the NFL. SF and Dallas were top 10 media cities when judging by the population local channels reach, and Dallas thanks to their America's Team monicer has always excelled in memorabelia sales usually being the #1 team in that department rarely if ever sinking below #3, that adds money which they spent on athletes which gave them the last powerhouse team of the dynasty era.
No I don't think free agency was a demon at all. The problem isn't free agency, it's how some owners HANDLE free agency. Look no further than the New York Rangers to see how some owners will just throw money at players, this alters the financial landscape of a league and makes it much more difficult to compete. The year the Dallas Stars won the Cup they had 6 players making more than Troy Aikman did on his most lucrative contract with the Cowboys, now given the relative revenues generated by each team and the over all personal fame do you really think the Stars had 6 players that had earned more money than a 3 time Super Bowl winning QB? Salaries have gotten out of hand in the NHL, too many teams simply can't afford to compete because too many other teams view their bank account as a bottomless pit, since these teams are franchises of the league and should exist to help each other earn revenue something needs to be done. McDonald's corporate wouldn't tolerate one franchise overbiding another and taking all their good employees because they understand it's bad for the chain as a whole, the NFL realized the same thing and instituted the salary cap for the betterment of the league, and the bottom line statements show they did the right thing.
There's no flimsy logic in there at all, and your need to resort to insults proves it. People who know their logic can hold can do so without insults, I haven't insulted you, do the world a kindness and return to polite discourse.
SF and Dallas were NOT small market teams. They weren't top 5 but they were top 10, and more importantly larger markets than most of the AFC teams except the Raiders and Jets in that time period. That was the focus of the AFL when it came about, small market areas, and freeform free agency beat the snot out of the AFC. Not all large market teams succeeded because not all owners and GMs spend money wisely, again look no further than the Rangers whose salary for the past 5 years has exceeded the NFL salary cap every year (with half the players, think about it).
The Pats have succeeded because the cracked the code of the salary cap. They don't over pay for players, they don't defer salary (which is the trap that killed Dallas and Denver and is still killing the Niners, defering salary is not a good idea in any sport and it's really dumb in a hard cap system), they have a smart coach with flexible game plans, and they look for smart players that can handle changing roles. But the system still works, notice they haven't won with blow outs, and the year they didn't win the SB they didn't even break 500. The salary cap was the last step in Rozelle's dream, it started with the draft system that allows the worst teams to get the best players out of college, he wanted an any given Sunday league, total parity where there's no way you could predict on Sep 1 who's going to win the SB.
Every site that discussed the NBA salary cap says it's a soft cap. Their cap didn't work for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that the fundamentals have dropped out of the game making it stink as a whole. Also the significantly smaller team sizes make it still very easy to overpower other teams with talent, if the talented players are willing to do stuff like pass the ball and practice their free throws.
It's not "please stop us from writing more check", it's "stop that owner over there from pricing us out of the market for skilled players".
Notice Tampa had been slowly building their team over time and was focusing on a team concept not unlike the Pats, it's not impossible for an inexpensive team to succeed in the NHL, but it's damn hard. And Calgary, like all the other Canadian teams, benefited from the Rangers fire sale, and Calgary also knew they were going to lose most of their big players in the next season because they simply can't afford to keep them. And that's the problem with unbridled free agency and crazy owners, small market teams can build to greatness but they can't afford to keep it. And any company using the franchise model that allow one group of franchises to dismantle others is doomed to failure.
Now, that was a significant, and reasoned argument.
It still boils down to one thing. Control of the owner's profligate spending.
If the Rangers, or any other club, were a major problem for the other owners, then deal with him/her in the "owner's club" like gentleman, and gentlewomen. Why penalize the players with an onerous salary cap just because the owners can't discipline their own clubmembers?
Also, of course, I apologize if my words came across as harsh or insulting. I'm obviously an advocate for the players, and not overly impressed with the current crop of owners or the commissioner. but, it was not my intent to let my passions be a burden to you.
Thanks for the discussion. I've got to run now, to see my daughter's basketball game (now there's REAL excitement)!
I hope to touch bases with you again some day.