I posted this on another thread but a) I think it deserves its own, and b) I didn't want to derail that thread.
I'd argue that the salary cap is in fact the great leveller and it's only because the draft and the salary cap came in around the same era that it's assumed the draft is the main reason. I like to compare it with the NRL that only within the last decade has brought back the salary cap.
The NRL comp is, for the most part, a lot more even. In 2007, no teams in the bottom half were more than 3 games out of the 8, with all teams bar one within 5 games of the top 4. In 2006 (15 team comp), teams 9-13 were no more than 3 games out of the 8, and 5 games off the top 3! In 2005 (15 team comp), teams 9-14 were no more than 3 games out of the 8, and 5 games off the top 4.
Contrast this with AFL. 2007 was a relatively even year, with teams 9-13 no more than 3 games out of the 8, and 5 games off the top 4. However in 2006 only two sides out of the 8 were within 3 games of the 8, and only three sides were within 5 games of the top four. And in 2005, only four suited both criteria.
They aren't massive numbers but they're consistent. With the exception of the years Souths have struggled this decade, 6-8 wins has been constant for the side finishing last! Imagine that in the AFL!
The reason why over the course of a year the NRL is generally more even is threefold. One, if injuries decimate a side they can select mature age players playing club football outside the NRL competition. Much easier for a Broncos to put a Shane Perry type into halfback a few years back, than it would be for a Richmond to have to rely on a young Adam Pattison type in the ruck all year. This means that although there's an obvious drop in the quality of a side if injuries hit, you can still field a physically capable side without having to blood players before they are ready.
Two, is that clubs can buy, at market price, players from other clubs in the off season to bolster weaknesses. Here in the AFL a trade would have to occur - which are becoming less and less prevalent as the years go on - and the club gaining the player will have to give up something also. It makes it difficult to rebuild a side over the course of a summer - it takes two, three, four years to "rebuild". NRL clubs still go through youth phases of course but because they can buy bit-part players from other clubs to guide them through they can still be very competitive. This is all backed by a salary cap that is stringently policed with hefty penalties for breaches to ensure that it's not just the "rich clubs" that continually prosper.
Three, and most importantly, there's no incentive to lose, so everyone at the club is completely behind sides winning. Sure, when a season's lost older players get surgeries and younger players are blooded, but the whole footy club including fans is 100% behind winning - without accusing them of throwing games, you can't tell me that all Richmond/Carlton/Melbourne fans as well as people around the footy club - club boards, support staff etc - were still treating winning as the most important thing? Most probably were but many would still have been happy to lose. In rugby league, you're fighting tooth and nail to the very end not only for pride but also to show prospective players you might seek out over the off season that the club is going somewhere.
The AFL system promotes cycles, the NRL system gives every side an even footing so that well-run clubs can prosper. That is true equality, true evenness. Clubs can't go out and buy a flag side as the salary cap impedes them from doing so, however they can easily and efficiently fix a hole in their squad immediately with someone who is ready to go. AFL clubs are hamstrung by a draft that forces them to wait 3 years to develop someone to possibly fix a need that might not be a need by the time the kid is ready to go. They're also hamstrung by increasingly shrinking list sizes that mean that if you're not in the club's best 25 you'd better be 20 or under or your days are numbered. Means if massive injuries strike you're stuffed because you can't build depth.
My solution is simple. Have an incredibly stringent and heavily policed salary cap, and a minimum age players can be signed. That's it. Players can be attracted to clubs by any means and at any time throughout the year as long as a contract is signed and their salary fits under the cap. Then we'll get sides fighting out til the end of the year and the real prospect that a side can go from being bottom dwellers to instantly competitive overnight, if the right players are recruited at the right time.
That the draft and salary cap came in at roughly the same time have made most believe that it's the draft that's the main equaliser. I'd argue it's the cap.
Just my two cents.
I'd argue that the salary cap is in fact the great leveller and it's only because the draft and the salary cap came in around the same era that it's assumed the draft is the main reason. I like to compare it with the NRL that only within the last decade has brought back the salary cap.
The NRL comp is, for the most part, a lot more even. In 2007, no teams in the bottom half were more than 3 games out of the 8, with all teams bar one within 5 games of the top 4. In 2006 (15 team comp), teams 9-13 were no more than 3 games out of the 8, and 5 games off the top 3! In 2005 (15 team comp), teams 9-14 were no more than 3 games out of the 8, and 5 games off the top 4.
Contrast this with AFL. 2007 was a relatively even year, with teams 9-13 no more than 3 games out of the 8, and 5 games off the top 4. However in 2006 only two sides out of the 8 were within 3 games of the 8, and only three sides were within 5 games of the top four. And in 2005, only four suited both criteria.
They aren't massive numbers but they're consistent. With the exception of the years Souths have struggled this decade, 6-8 wins has been constant for the side finishing last! Imagine that in the AFL!
The reason why over the course of a year the NRL is generally more even is threefold. One, if injuries decimate a side they can select mature age players playing club football outside the NRL competition. Much easier for a Broncos to put a Shane Perry type into halfback a few years back, than it would be for a Richmond to have to rely on a young Adam Pattison type in the ruck all year. This means that although there's an obvious drop in the quality of a side if injuries hit, you can still field a physically capable side without having to blood players before they are ready.
Two, is that clubs can buy, at market price, players from other clubs in the off season to bolster weaknesses. Here in the AFL a trade would have to occur - which are becoming less and less prevalent as the years go on - and the club gaining the player will have to give up something also. It makes it difficult to rebuild a side over the course of a summer - it takes two, three, four years to "rebuild". NRL clubs still go through youth phases of course but because they can buy bit-part players from other clubs to guide them through they can still be very competitive. This is all backed by a salary cap that is stringently policed with hefty penalties for breaches to ensure that it's not just the "rich clubs" that continually prosper.
Three, and most importantly, there's no incentive to lose, so everyone at the club is completely behind sides winning. Sure, when a season's lost older players get surgeries and younger players are blooded, but the whole footy club including fans is 100% behind winning - without accusing them of throwing games, you can't tell me that all Richmond/Carlton/Melbourne fans as well as people around the footy club - club boards, support staff etc - were still treating winning as the most important thing? Most probably were but many would still have been happy to lose. In rugby league, you're fighting tooth and nail to the very end not only for pride but also to show prospective players you might seek out over the off season that the club is going somewhere.
The AFL system promotes cycles, the NRL system gives every side an even footing so that well-run clubs can prosper. That is true equality, true evenness. Clubs can't go out and buy a flag side as the salary cap impedes them from doing so, however they can easily and efficiently fix a hole in their squad immediately with someone who is ready to go. AFL clubs are hamstrung by a draft that forces them to wait 3 years to develop someone to possibly fix a need that might not be a need by the time the kid is ready to go. They're also hamstrung by increasingly shrinking list sizes that mean that if you're not in the club's best 25 you'd better be 20 or under or your days are numbered. Means if massive injuries strike you're stuffed because you can't build depth.
My solution is simple. Have an incredibly stringent and heavily policed salary cap, and a minimum age players can be signed. That's it. Players can be attracted to clubs by any means and at any time throughout the year as long as a contract is signed and their salary fits under the cap. Then we'll get sides fighting out til the end of the year and the real prospect that a side can go from being bottom dwellers to instantly competitive overnight, if the right players are recruited at the right time.
That the draft and salary cap came in at roughly the same time have made most believe that it's the draft that's the main equaliser. I'd argue it's the cap.
Just my two cents.
