Layer 1 / 7Concepts & question
Frame the question
Set the purpose, the question worth reasoning about, and the concepts the whole house rests on.
Purpose
Decide whether professional leagues should impose a salary cap, and on what terms, so the case holds up to players, owners, and fans.
Overarching question
Should salary caps exist in professional sports?
Key concepts
Competitive balancePlayer mobilityRevenue sharingOwner incentives
Layer 2 / 7Stakeholders
Build the perspectives
Reason from each stakeholder in turn. Assign perspectives to co-builders so the work divides cleanly.
4 perspectives
PlayersYOYou62
Caps suppress earnings in a short, injury-prone career.
OwnersMRMaya R.72
Caps curb runaway spending and protect franchise value.
Small-market teamsDKDevan K.68
A cap is the way they stay competitive with rich markets.
FansYOYou58
Care about a fair title race more than any single roster.
Layer 3 / 7Sourced facts
Ground it in evidence
Add facts with citations. Research Mode finds sources for you, and every claim links back to something checkable.
3 sourced facts
MRThe hard-capped NFL produced 12 different champions over 20 years, and the uncapped MLB produced 11.
League championship records (2004-2024)
DKPayroll-to-wins correlation is weaker in capped leagues than in uncapped ones.
Illustrative demo evidence, not a citation
YOUnion analyses estimate a cap shifts a mid-single-digit share of league revenue from labor to ownership.
Illustrative demo evidence, not a citation
Layer 4 / 7Foundations
Surface the assumptions
Name what has to be true for the reasoning to hold. Weak footings show up here first.
3 foundational assumptions
01Fans value competitive balance and reward it with attention.YO
02Owners reinvest the savings from a cap rather than pocketing them.DK
03Leagues can enforce a cap without large-scale circumvention.MR
Layer 5 / 7Where it lands
Draw the conclusion
State the central conclusion and the reasoning that carries the perspectives into it.
Central conclusion
A salary cap is worth adopting when it runs alongside revenue sharing, so small-market teams stay viable and title races stay open.
The case should be made honestly, because capped and uncapped leagues both produce a wide field of champions.
Reasoning summary
Championship records in capped and uncapped leagues look similar, which means the cap explains less of competitive balance than fans assume. It does stabilize small-market franchises, and it moves a measurable share of revenue from players to owners. The strongest version of the argument treats revenue sharing as the real balancing mechanism and states the cost to players plainly.
Layer 6 / 7Consequences
Trace the implications
Map what follows if the conclusion holds, sorted by how positive, negative, or uncertain each consequence is.
4 implications mappedSorted by register and tagged with time horizon and who it lands on.
Positive · 2Tighter title races and more watchable regular seasons.
Long-termFans
Financial stability for small-market franchises.
Near-termSmall-market teams
Negative · 1Suppressed pay in careers that average under four years.
Near-termPlayers
Uncertain · 1Whether the cap or revenue sharing does the real balancing.
Long-termThe league
Signals to watch · would change the conclusion→Luxury-tax thresholds quietly replacing a hard cap.
→Superstar movement concentrating talent in a few large markets.
Layer 7 / 7Score & publish
Review house strength
See how the house scores across evidence, logic, and coverage, what is driving each number, and what would raise it.
57/ 100
DevelopingThe reasoning is taking shape but leans on thin support. Add evidence and coverage before publishing.
The three scores
EvidenceDeveloping68
How well each claim is backed by a cited, checkable source.
Driving this score3 sourced facts
LogicThin51
Whether assumptions are surfaced and the conclusion follows from them.
Driving this score3 assumptions, conclusion set, 4 implications
CoverageThin48
The range of stakeholder perspectives the house accounts for.
Driving this score4 perspectives
How the overall is weightedEvidence 40% · Logic 35% · Coverage 25%