Would you prefer dynasties in the game or talent equalisation?

[titoelcolombiano]

I've been listening lately to a superb podcast by The Rugby League Digest on the Super League War including the beginnings in 1994. It got me thinking about the great Raiders and Broncos teams of the 90's and even good sides like Manly and Norths were recognisable in that era by the players that consistently pulled on the jersey year-in-year-out.

My question is, what do you prefer? Teams having the ability to assemble super-teams like the Raiders and Broncos did and mostly keep a generation of players together? Or do we prefer the talent equalisation that the modern slary cap provides?

Both have their qualities and draw-backs. Dynasties really mark an era and seem to create a real buzz around the game, a 'must-see' team even if your team is being belted by them. They also mean that teams can be perenial wooden spooners. Talent equalisation makes not only the competition more competitive but also ensures that when your team is having a tough run, they could rebuild and emerge out of it within a couple of seasons. The draw-back is that you don't have much club loyalty and you will never have any super-teams ever again. The closest you will get is two or three core gun players with a squad being constantly rotated around them (Melbourne is the best modern example of this).

 

[carcharias]

The salary cap is there for a very good reason.
Without it the same teams win every year.
f**k that.
Even with it the same teams seems to magically build formidable teams.

 

[Quicksilver]

I like caps.

 

[Knight76]

If it were the Knights going on a long Dynasty I'm all for it.

Otherwise talent equalisation thanks.

 

[Springs09]

Even with the salary cap a team can more or less be kept together for 2-3 years at least. That's enough time to marvel at a good team before most fans get sick of them. For example Melbourne being constantly at the top of the table since 2006 would be like that great Raiders team still being top well into the 2000s.

It's getting real boring seeing the Roosters and Storm on top all the time.

 

[BennyV]

Or do we prefer the talent equalisation that the modern salary cap provides?

...so this is a joke thread?

 

[titoelcolombiano]

...so this is a joke thread?

lol

 

[LineBall]

I'd prefer no cap - but with no bail outs if a club goes broke.

 

[Perth Red]

Storm, roosters and to lessor degree manly in the era of the cap have built dynasty squads. I don’t think it’s an and or scenario.

Social media means people constantly whinge at any success these days if it’s not their club, look at how people respond to the greatest hooker of all time.

 

[mave]

Social media means people constantly whinge at any success these days if it’s not their club, look at how people respond to the greatest hooker of all time.

Probably because he is also one of the greatest fkwits of all time, as well.

 

[T-Boon]

I've been listening lately to a superb podcast by The Rugby League Digest on the Super League War including the beginnings in 1994. It got me thinking about the great Raiders and Broncos teams of the 90's and even good sides like Manly and Norths were recognisable in that era by the players that consistently pulled on the jersey year-in-year-out.

My question is, what do you prefer? Teams having the ability to assemble super-teams like the Raiders and Broncos did and mostly keep a generation of players together? Or do we prefer the talent equalisation that the modern slary cap provides?

Both have their qualities and draw-backs. Dynasties really mark an era and seem to create a real buzz around the game, a 'must-see' team even if your team is being belted by them. They also mean that teams can be perenial wooden spooners. Talent equalisation makes not only the competition more competitive but also ensures that when your team is having a tough run, they could rebuild and emerge out of it within a couple of seasons. The draw-back is that you don't have much club loyalty and you will never have any super-teams ever again. The closest you will get is two or three core gun players with a squad being constantly rotated around them (Melbourne is the best modern example of this).

Very good question.

 

[T-Boon]

I'd prefer no cap - but with no bail outs if a club goes broke.

I don't know much about them but I am thinking those soft caps they have in American sport. You go over a certain amount and have to pay a tax into an NRL slush fund.
Combine that with a rookie draft and free agency in order to equalise talent and published player wages to get rid of agents.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

I don't know much about them but I am thinking those soft caps they have in American sport. You go over a certain amount and have to pay a tax into an NRL slush fund.
Combine that with a rookie draft and free agency in order to equalise talent and published player wages to get rid of agents.

Not a bad idea

 

[MilkShark]

Is this a serious question?

 

[MilkShark]

Dynasties really mark an era and seem to create a real buzz around the game, a 'must-see' team even if your team is being belted by them.

I don't know about anyone else but I don't want to see some dynasty team absolute belt my team.

Also, I'd much prefer many must see games each week than 1 or 2 teams belt every other team week in week out.

If you like unfair competition go watch F1 and see how ''fun'' that is to watch.

 

[nick87]

We’ve got John Bateman, so obviously I’m gonna say dynasty

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

The salary cap is there for a very good reason.
Without it the same teams win every year.
f**k that.
Even with it the same teams seems to magically build formidable teams.

In a debate between this cap and no cap, i am all for staying with this one. But there are more than just 2 options in this...

I think we should just HOPE that players stay loyal to one club, i think the cap should actively encourage it with long service discounts in the cap.

We hear a lot about clubs "rebuilding", this would make it true. I would love to see clubs stack their sides with you guys with a view to have the same side together in 5-8 years when all of these guys have matured.

Its obviously bad to have the rich clubs buying up all the best guys, but i think our cap goes to far the other way. Everything right now is just one year then whipe the slate clean, i think we should figure out a cap that rewards work over 5-10 years.

 

[Rhino_NQ]

Dynasty. Just to sit back and watch the fight over brad parker

 

[dogslife]

Someone needs to explain to the previous Bulldogs management, Des Hasler and Roosters fans what the salary cap is

 

[Life's Good]

I like how players talk about creating a dynasty yet would struggle to spell it.