What would you most like to see in the NEW CBA?

[Brian Fein]

I don't know if its CBA related but I'd like to see these monopolist agreements with other companies go away.  Like the agreement with Reebok to make jerseys and other gear, or the agreement with EA to make Madden.  I think these are, in general, bad for the consumer, and make it bad for the economy in the long run. 

[Dave Gray]

Arguing what is and what isn't a hard cap seems like stupid semantics.  That said, I still think I'm right.

A hard cap can have exceptions.  The NFL has a hard cap with exceptions right now.

A soft cap means that you can break the cap if you want, but it costs you.

Is that not the case?

[Phishfan]

  The NFL has a hard cap with exceptions right now.

A soft cap means that you can break the cap if you want, but it costs you.

Is that not the case?

That is the basis for the argument,. During the season the NFL does not have exceptions (unless you are counting bonuses which are spread over several years which I am not), that is why it is a hard cap. Each season each team has to be at a certain level. A soft cap means there are exceptions that would allow going over during the season. I don't think the "it costs you" part has anything with if it is a soft or hard cap. The difference between the two is one has exceptions and the other doesn't.

[MikeO]

Then I hate to break it to you, MikeO: The NFL has had a SOFT CAP for years and years, by your very own definition.

No it doesn't.

[MikeO]

That is the basis for the argument,. During the season the NFL does not have exceptions (unless you are counting bonuses which are spread over several years which I am not), that is why it is a hard cap. Each season each team has to be at a certain level. A soft cap means there are exceptions that would allow going over during the season. I don't think the "it costs you" part has anything with if it is a soft or hard cap. The difference between the two is one has exceptions and the other doesn't.

BINGO! Someone gets it

[fyo]

No it doesn't.

You said it, not I. I was simply using your definition and tying that directly to a subsequent post of yours.

As for Phisfan's comment and your "BINGO!" reply... someone may well "get it", but that someone doesn't appear to be you.

Incentive bonuses can most certainly be reached DURING the season (most, in fact, are) and thus it's easily possible for a team to go over the cap during the season. That, by your definition, is a soft cap.

I disagree with your definition, but that's another matter. Try looking "hard cap" up in reputable sources... you'll see the definitions are hardly as black-and-white as you portray them.

[Phishfan]

Incentive bonuses can most certainly be reached DURING the season (most, in fact, are) and thus it's easily possible for a team to go over the cap during the season. That, by your definition, is a soft cap.

They classify these bonuses as likely to be earned and not likely to be earned though. The likely to be earned incentives are already counted against your salary cap. That only leaves the unlikely to be earned ones not counting against the cap. Since all of the incentives that are likely to be earned already count against your cap, how can you argue that this sole item is the cause for teams going over the cap regularly (which I'm not conviced is accurate)?

[fyo]

They classify these bonuses as likely to be earned and not likely to be earned though. The likely to be earned incentives are already counted against your salary cap. That only leaves the unlikely to be earned ones not counting against the cap.

There are two separate issues here:

1) The definitions of LTBE and NLTBE are only loosely related to the actual likelihood of the incentive criteria being met. For example, if the Dolphins has decided to give a player a bonus based on the Dolphins winning 2 or more games after the 1-15 season, that bonus would be considered NOT likely to be earned.

2) The issue of "voided years", which I brought up earlier, isn't covered by these rules. Regardless of whether the criteria for voided years are deemed LTBE or NLTBE, any remaining pro-rated bonus money is immediately charged to the teams salary cap. In the event that this amount pushes the team over the cap, that amount is deducted from next years cap, allowing the team to break the cap in one year, while taking a hit in another. The bonus classification only affects the hit the team takes if the player is actually on the roster at a later date, despite the voided years.

Issue number 2, specifically, was what got MikeO in trouble with his definition of a soft cap.

[MikeO]

^^ I didn't get in trouble with anything. You clearly don't know the difference between a hard cap and a soft cap and your ramblings make that clear.

Trying to classify the NFL as a soft cap is just flat out 100% incorrect. It's a hard cap. You think roster bonuses being pushed off till next year makes it soft. NO, that is when roster bonuses are due. THat doesn't make the cap soft in any way. It just means when they are due, you must have your cap adjusted to fit such player under.

[Dave Gray]

The problem, MikeO, is that the NFL doesn't fall into your strict definition of a hard cap.  So, either the NFL isn't a hard cap (which it is) or your hard and fast definition of a hard cap is too strict (which it is.)

[Spider-Dan]

MikeO, if the NFL had a "hard cap" (as you define it), you would not be allowed to violate it for any reason, right?

In 2009, the NFL salary cap was ~$128 million, yet NYG's payroll was ~$137 million.  How?  Because the Giants used a salary cap loophole to create more space under the cap.  This means that one of two things is true:

1) the NFL does not have a "hard cap" (as you defined it)
2) a "hard cap" can still have exceptions and loopholes (which you dispute)

To be perfectly clear, the key sentence to take away from the "loophole" article I cited (emphasis added):

"According to NFLPA records, the Giants recently exercised a common practice used by many teams to create more salary-cap room for the upcoming season."

So which is it?  Does the NFL have a "hard cap," or not?

[Phishfan]

^^^ Thanks for providing some links, but your loophole article doesn't support your 2009 salary cap. That loophole was for a way for them to increase their 2010 cap, it had nothing to do with where they stood in 2009. I don't count finding a loophole that allows you to increase the salary cap as actually being a way of going over the cap. Perhaps they employed a very similar technique in 2008 and increased their cap space for 2009? The article does say it is a common practice. As a matter of fact that is a January 2009 article which mentions they are under the cap by $7.2M at that point. That leads me to believe the either used that loophole for 2009 or your USA Today link has bad information.

[Spider-Dan]

Phishfan, the 2008-09 NFL season ended in January 2009.  An article written in January 2009 that talks about "next season" is, therefore, referring to the 2009-10 NFL season, which started in September 2009.  This is corroborated by the fact that the Giants exceeded the "hard cap" in the 2009-10 season.   Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to use a loophole to make space in the 2010 cap... when the 2010 season had no cap.

As for your opinion that a loophole that allows you to increase the cap doesn't count... isn't that the entire point of this tangent?  Dave said he wanted a hard cap with a loophole, and people started screaming that a hard cap cannot have loopholes.  So which is it?

[Phishfan]

Makes sense. Since the Super Bowl wasn't until February I was reading it as the current season still. Besides, was the uncapped year a reality at that point? I know it had been talk, but wasn't sure when it went from talk to reality.

As for the loophole and hard versus soft caps. I bow out by saying that technically, the Giants did not go over their salary cap because it had been increased so I still win (please take in jest)

[fyo]

As soon as you allow all sorts of "accounting practices" to shuffle around salary to count as cap in different years, it's not black-and-white anymore, IMHO. And when you allow for a "whoops, we went over the cap, so we'll just take the amount we went over and move that to next year" with regards to voided years, it certainly pushes the definition of "hard cap" into the gray area.

Just FYI, here's a graph of ACTUAL TEAM PAYROLLS (money paid to players). The gray lines indicate the salary cap and salary floor, just for comparison.



Yeah, not the prettiest graph ever...

A few of interesting notes:

-> 2009 payouts were really low, which would seem to indicate that either teams really were struggling financially or, more likely IMHO, that they were dumping payouts into the uncapped 2010 season.

-> Even a 3 or 5-year moving average doesn't get individual team payouts in line with the salary cap.

-> Over the 10-year period, the low 2009 manages to get total payouts from everyone but the Redskins and Saints in under the total cap over the 10-year time frame.

-> The Redskins spent about $120M more than the Chiefs during this period (which, coincidentally, matches Snyder's ownership quite well).

-> The Chargers and Bills are the only two teams not to pay out more money in any year than the salary cap.

-> The Cardinals and Bears are the only two teams not to pay out less money in any year than the salary floor.