New locker room too

[Essex Johnson]

(08-02-2024, 02:56 PM)ochocincos Wrote: 1) Some of the people saying the Bengals are cheap aren't going to look for sites that talk about their roster strength. They're only going to recognize stars. Bengals have a really good team, but how many of the players outside of Burrow, Chase, and Higgins would the outsider NFL fan be able to name? Bengals roster has some underrated guys that just aren't big names.

2) Even if they have a good team on the field, it doesn't change the fact some see the ownership as cheap. Even if they did pay top dollar for some premier talent, some things like stadium quality are considered toward the bottom for NFL. For example, New York Times listed Paycor Stadium 27th out of 30 stadiums in the NFL.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/4783340/2023/08/21/nfl-stadium-rankings-all-30-nfl-venues-from-best-to-worst/




Quality of the team and a franchise's frugality are not the same thing.

It seems you drifting from your assumption that is takes top ten players in good amount of positions to be SB roster and I would argue depth is very important to success as a team and too much money invested in 5 to 7 positions could hinder a team success. Also what teams actually have top ten rated players at more than 5 or more positions. 

I think it is apples to oranges to compare owners and teams, just a handful of nfl teams wealth is tied to the team. Of course Browns, Halas, Wilsony, Bidwells  might be less apt to open their pocketbook compared to rich owners who don't have to worry about team revenue as their main source of income.

As for age of stadiums,  Bengals are 13th oldest stadium  and at least 4 to 5 stadiums older than them have had major renovations.