I have an idea of what I want my argument to be, but I’m sure a little assistance to make it better wouldn’t hurt.
A single player taking up most of a team’s salary cap does not give the team the best chance to build a successful roster, making it harder to win championships.
As I mentioned in my response to your notes on “Types of Causal Arguments,” CW:
Your 5th is nice, but its proof is not exactly needed. What MIGHT need to be disproved is the notion that NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY IT TAKES, LANDING THE BEST FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK IS THE BEST WAY TO WIN A SUPERBOWL.
In other words, based on the evidence, a lot of teams appear to think that they can completely gut their own salary structures by “making the QB a part-owner of the team” in an effort to win it all. Obviously, the position is the most important in NFL football (maybe in all of team sports), but it should also be clear by now that spending half of your salary budget on one player makes it all but impossible to provide him with the skill players he needs to be successful.
Try making yours a “Causal Fallacy” argument in which you dispute all the evidence for the “Franchise QB at all costs” approach to winning.
Does that make sense? It’s just a tweak on your own suggestion.