If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sports by Brooks)   Five lowest-paid NFL teams have better combined record than five highest-paid squads   ( sportsbybrooks.com) divider line
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

15467 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Dec 2003 at 6:51 AM (14 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

74 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

2003-12-01 06:32:22 AM  
[image from orthanc.univap.br too old to be available]

Money doesn't buy you talent, it buys great big egos.
2003-12-01 06:54:52 AM  
This is stupid, Australian football players have a team salary cap of like under $4 million ($2.5 million US), and people here complain they're overpaid. Stupid Americans
2003-12-01 06:57:14 AM  
Parity, plus aging players with outsized contracts. I'm looking at you, Raiders!
2003-12-01 06:57:31 AM  
At least the Vikings still have a winning record. For the moment.

Hey Dante... pine resin. Helps keep things from slipping out of hands. Try it some time.
2003-12-01 06:59:36 AM  
holy crap, where is all that money the cardinals are using actually going?
2003-12-01 07:03:55 AM  
Folks, lets put this in perspective. What the hell does it have to do with porn?
2003-12-01 07:05:56 AM  
slimshaydee Well, your entitled to your oppinion, but A salary cap of four million would kill the sport. First off, Austrailian football has, what, 20 or so players? NFL teams have 80. And unlike other sports, football playeras tend to have short careers, so I have no beef with paying them well.

That said, I think some players(Warren Sapp) should shut their mouths. I mean, calling himself a slave. Come on...
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2003-12-01 07:10:49 AM  

2003-12-01 07:19:40 AM  
Top 5 teams' record is 25-35.
Bottom 5 teams' record is 25-34.

I'm not a mathematician, but I would bet that that 1/2 game difference is not statistically significant.

And if it weren't for the 8-4 Dolphins, the bottom 5 teams' records would look even more pathetic.
2003-12-01 07:23:22 AM  
To me, this seems [OBVIOUS]. When you're #2...or dead last...you DO try harder! Unfortunately it's probably the lure of those bloated, ridiculous salaries that is spurring them on.

My beef is NOT, however, with the players who have come to EXPECT this horrendous wages. Nor with the team owners who grant them. Americans biatch about our crappy economy yet they still find enough pocket change to PAY THOSE SALARIES. Stop going to the games, folks, and those salaries will come down mighty damn quick. It is, after all, only a game. NOT a religion!
2003-12-01 07:25:07 AM  
Publicwerks, Actually we have 40
2003-12-01 07:29:07 AM  
Stupid Americans indeed. I will never pay for a pro sporting event here again. Sixty dollars for a game?? On top of that, beer is what, 5 bucks for a can of piss in a plastic cup, 3 or so for a hot dog? Then the teams have the bleeding audacity to demand that WE the taxpayers foot the bill for their stadiums or they'll move? This country pays the entertainment well more than it should. Professional sporting events have become little but forums for advertisers to flex their wallets in.

Thinking about this reminds me of the threatened baseball strike of a year or two ago. Some minor league team out of Oregon (?) had a canned food drive for the Pro baseball teams, pure brilliance.
2003-12-01 07:31:23 AM  
Huh? The NFL has a salary cap. So, it's not like the top teams can spend more to buy all the best players *cough* baseball *cough*. Every team is equal, and if owners want to save a few mil by leaving cap room open, that's certainly their perogative.

And the Australian thing...well of course football has a much bigger market. It's a much bigger pie, of course the slices are larger as well. These guys deserve it...I mean they go through what is basically the equivalent of an automobile accident every Sunday for four months straight. After a few years of this, most of them are permanently disabled in certain ways, some more, some less. The ones who really give up their bodies basically decide to live the rest of their lives on pain medication, with their life expectancy decided by how long their liver can function and metabolize painkillers.
2003-12-01 07:36:29 AM  
[image from soccersucks.org too old to be available]
2003-12-01 07:43:53 AM  

Not that I disagree with professional athletes' salaries being ridiculous, but football is a minor offender. If you want to be scared, look at how much people can be paid to avoid being shiat upon by passing birds (...that's the point of baseball, isn't it? I honestly haven't seen much action in baseball that wasn't related to that.)
2003-12-01 07:55:13 AM  
"I'm not a mathematician, but I would bet that that 1/2 game difference is not statistically significant."

Uhh, the point is one group spends way more on their players then the other. And like you said, produces the same result. Forgot the coffee this morning?

Oh and BTW, who the hell are the Saints spending 85 mil on? Deuce? Who the hell else is any good on that team.
2003-12-01 08:02:50 AM  
[image from images.sportsline.com too old to be available]
Blame this guy...
2003-12-01 08:03:33 AM  

Total Aussie population: 20mil

Total US population: 290mil

If that weren't enough:

Your login name: US rapper = our culture invading the world

2003-12-01 08:06:16 AM  
It's the same thing in hockey too.

But that's mostly because hockey is, you know, more of a TEAM sport...not some flashy, overhyped faux sport where only two or three guys on either team ever get to touch the ball, hence making the ability to buy championships slightly tricker.

But only slightly.
2003-12-01 08:09:33 AM  
"permission to treat the witness as hostile."
"not only is he hostile, he's down right ugly too!"
2003-12-01 08:33:30 AM  
Smaller rewards are more effective than one greaty big reward.

Its pure psychology.
2003-12-01 08:34:48 AM  

Who are the Cards paying for that makes them in the top 5 in salaries? They have no one.
2003-12-01 08:40:53 AM  
For all those biatching about players' salaries...When you own your own team, you can pay em whatever you want...until then shut the hell up!!
2003-12-01 08:51:37 AM  
The only reason the records are unequal is because the steelers got a buy. Otherwise they'd lose yet another game.
2003-12-01 08:54:36 AM  
What I wanna know is: who do the Cowboys have on their team that makes them pay $78 million?
2003-12-01 08:55:36 AM  
Another Q--do you want employers in Your industry to work together to limit the amount they have to pay you?

Players are paid alot because owners will pay it. I do think it's cool that throwing money around doesn't guarantee results in team-based sports. Leaves alot of room for human factors, and luck, all of which keeps it interesting.
2003-12-01 09:02:01 AM  
The cards pay Emmitt Smith a lot to sit on the bench. And they have an expensive offensive line, which doesn't do them much good. And they gave new contracts to some of their players this season to take advantage of their unused cap space. Money well spent? Hardly.
2003-12-01 09:13:21 AM  

Think Larry Allen, Darren Woodson, Roy Williams and Terrance Newman. Also remember they're still counting some of Troy Aikman and Emmit Smith's salaries against this years cap.
2003-12-01 09:19:04 AM  
BTW, the top-paid NFL team is about 1.5x the bottom. That is nowhere near as bad as baseball, where the Yankers were paid 4x as much as the team that beat them in the Series.

Eat it again, George.
2003-12-01 09:24:01 AM  
Total salary of top 6 teams: $442 million

Total salary of bottom 6 teams: $430 million
2003-12-01 09:24:06 AM  
Maybe so, but aren't we all really more interested in [image from sportsbybrooks.com too old to be available]?
2003-12-01 09:30:50 AM  

Who are the Cards paying for that makes them in the top 5 in salaries? They have no one."

No one?? Are you kidding? They've got pro-bowl cornerback Aneas Willi...err, I mean that fullback who led the team in receptions, Larry Cent...wait, no....Well, at least they still have some hope with that young quarterback Jake Plum...hrmm, damn.

You're right. They have no one.
2003-12-01 09:33:13 AM  
Gman? I get Top 6 = $493MM; bottom 6 = $363MM, a 35% difference.
2003-12-01 09:36:26 AM  
Huh? The NFL has a salary cap. So, it's not like the top teams can spend more to buy all the best players *cough* baseball *cough*. Every team is equal, and if owners want to save a few mil by leaving cap room open, that's certainly their perogative.

In some cases, it's not that simple. The NFL has no guaranteed salaries, which means that any team can cut any player at any time without having to pay him the rest of his salary. But that salary still counts against the salary cap for that team for the rest of that year, and, depending on what time in the year the salary is cut (I think it's a June 1 deadline), it may count against the team's cap the following year, as well.

So if a team with a $30 M payroll signs three free agents at $20 M a year each (and we're talking EXTREMELY hypothetically here), and they all suck, and the team decides to cut them, they can do so without paying those players the rest of their salaries. BUT, those salaries still count against the cap. So the team would be back to a $30 M payroll, but its cap would probably be maxed out (and they'd be screwed for a fair amount of time).

It may not be a matter of owners choosing not to max out their caps (though in some cases, like the Eagles, it is). The owners may not be permitted to spend as much as the salary cap.


I hope that's just flamebait.
2003-12-01 09:38:45 AM  
Wow-there's some nice looking women on that site. Don't know what they have to do with sports, though.

In hockey, isn't the obvious example the New York Rangers, who have underdelivered for years, despite having the highest salary in the league?
2003-12-01 09:43:35 AM  
2003-12-01 10:05:38 AM  
this doesn't mean very much. every team will spend very close to the same amount, because that's all they can spend. the only real question here is "why are some teams leaving some money on the table?" and that's still pretty easily answered.

thanks for a good attempt, though, poster.
2003-12-01 10:11:26 AM  
The Cardinals? Well they decided they wanted some warm butts in the seats and figured paying washed-up Emmet Smith would do it...

The Vikings? Well they gave 90, and 100 million dollar contracts to Randy Moss and Daunte Culpepper respectivly. Doesn't leave a lot of cap room for a defense. Paying that much money to the two most over-rated players in the league is bad business. Their defense=teh major suck.

Redskins? Dan Snyder thinks he can 'Marlins' his way to a Super Bowl trophy. He has all the cash and stupidity of a steinbrenner with none of the business savvy.

The Bucs? Hmmmmm. Maybe Dungy WAS the better coach. He was certainly the better disciplinarian. Loud-mouths like Sapp and Meshawn are why they are up there in salary and down there in wins. BTW they are still paying Meshawn while he makes even more cash in the Fox studios running his mouth. I'd expect he is just as happy, being paid to run his mouth as he was being paid to suck as a receiver.
2003-12-01 10:17:29 AM  
Players that were good are expensive.

Players that are becoming good are cheap.

End of story.
2003-12-01 10:18:01 AM  
Wow actual content from Sports by Brooks? I thought that was just a porno site...
2003-12-01 10:27:58 AM  
FishBulb: I so agree with you... for awhile (based on the crap they have in their forums now) i thought SBB was turning into some sleazy sports themed porn site, but i guess Brooks is trying to be respectable again...

hope it sticks... im just happy there hasnt been an ASKMEN.COM link on fark in 2 whole days! *yay*
2003-12-01 10:36:36 AM  
By a half-game.
2003-12-01 10:40:03 AM  
And also, as far as the US/Aussie football thing, and I'm not saying anything bad about Australia, but the US is a major market, the NFL is selling a product and making TONS of money, so they can afford to pay players all this money. I do think it's way too much, yes, but just because American teams pay their players a lot more than Aussie teams do doesn't make Americans "stupid." You, sir, are a troll.
2003-12-01 10:45:31 AM  
Who do the (insert team) have that they're paying $(X)Million?
2003-12-01 10:46:50 AM  
hence making the ability to buy championships slightly tricker.

Tell that to the Red Wings, hockey's version of the Yankees. The Rangers are hockey's Orioles or to a lesser extent, the Dodgers.
2003-12-01 10:48:07 AM  
In other news: THE BEARS STILL SUCK!

Who hasn't beat the Cardinals and Emmit Smith? Emmit Smith has turned the rushing record into a joke. He isn't even a top 20 running back.

/end rant

2003-12-01 10:48:26 AM  
The articles supports a major point, that in the NFL, record is not directly tied to salary. The word is parity.

Just look at how things change.
10 years ago, the Rams, Bucs, and Bengals were all jokes
4 Years ago, the Rams come from nowhere and win the Super Bowl
1 Year ago, the Bucs win the Super Bowl
This year, the Bucs are mediocre, and the Bengals have risen from the cellar.

Some people don't like parity, but I think it's a good thing. The salary cap keeps talent spread around, and every year your team has a shot of making the playoffs (except the Detroit Lions). Of the 12 playoff teams from last year, only 3 of them, Tenn, Indy, and Philly, have a good chance of reaching the playoffs again this year.
2003-12-01 10:55:33 AM  
Hey hey hey, Theseus, don't you be talkin' 'bout my Lions now! If they win just one more this year they'll equal their win total over the last two, Mooch has this team headed in the right direction!

/so pathetic
2003-12-01 10:58:53 AM  
Our Bears SEEM to be sucking less, we'll see next weekend I guess. But there is good news. After this season is over, we'll be among the top 10 teams in cap room. Then we can spend more money on guys like Kordell. Aren't you happier now?
2003-12-01 11:01:35 AM  
Take an economics class. This is basic demand and supply. Those wishing to see a football game far outnumber the number of tickets. So obviously the price will be high, and stay high until no one wants to see a game. And as far as 5 or 6 buck beers. Doesnt bother me too much, I am there to see the game not get tanked. And frankly if a 6 dollar beer keeps that piece of white trash behind me from getting tanked and making an ass out of himself I am all for it. 78 thousand drunks is a riot not a football game.
I go to sporting events and I admit its a ream sometimes, but the people attending are more responsible for the prices paid then those charging. If its too high for you dont go and watch the prices (and paychecks) fall.
Of course, we are americans, and would rather watch a nice football game or hollywood movie before we, you know, actually spend time with our families. Those prices will never be falling, and for the most part neither will attendance.
Displayed 50 of 74 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.