View Single Post
Old
11-01-2012, 11:52 AM
  #37
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
People who support contraction are failing to project.

You know what happens if you remove the 4 weakest teams in the league?

You end up with the teams currently 23-26 becoming the 4 weakest teams in a 26-team league. Yes, those teams would be and are better able to meet current salary cap considerations. However, average revenue per team would rise since you're removing the 4 weakest teams, and thus the salary cap would necessarily rise as well, we'd be right back to square one.

As an example, let's say the cap now is at 60 million due to fixed player revenue, and you remove the 4 weakest teams who each make an average of one half the average revenue. That means the cap would then rise to approximately 64.3 million, just because average revenue per team have risen.

Contraction is a complete non-starter to fixing the league's problem.
While I agree with this post, you missed part of the point of what Hickey proposed: the cap would be $60 million for the next 10 years. He wants it to be the same no matter what happens to league revenue or if there is contraction or expansion. His solution included a simple static amount on the cap. So, contraction would NOT increase the cap in his system. That is what you missed.

Drydenwasthebest is offline