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

[Phishfan]

Isn't a soft cap one that just allows for instances which a team can go over? It sounds to me like you do want a soft cap, with only one loophole.

[Dave Gray]

No, I want a hard cap, with one loop-hole.

A soft cap is a cap that limits what you can spend, without penalty.  You can go over the cap all you want, but there are financial penalties.

A hard cap means that you can't sign players to your roster, above a certain amount.  I favor this version, but one that allows for a break if you're trying to re-sign one of your legacy players.  It's not just a decreased cap-hit for veteran players.  It's a decreased cap hit only for veteran players that are re-signing with their team.

[Phishfan]

No, I want a hard cap, with one loop-hole.

A soft cap is a cap that limits what you can spend, without penalty.  You can go over the cap all you want, but there are financial penalties.

A hard cap means that you can't sign players to your roster, above a certain amount.  I favor this version, but one that allows for a break if you're trying to re-sign one of your legacy players.  It's not just a decreased cap-hit for veteran players.  It's a decreased cap hit only for veteran players that are re-signing with their team.

A hard cap means you cannot exceed the salary cap for any reason. A soft cap is one with propvisions that would allow a team to exceed it. You are in favor of a soft cap with your rule exception. Just because you only favor one exception doesn't mean it is still a hard cap. The hard cap has no exceptions.

[Dave Gray]

^ I don't think that's how it works, though I'm not sure.

A hard cap means no exceptions, like you said.  This would also have no exceptions.  All money in a contract doesn't go to the cap (you have things like signing bonuses and all that.)  This would just make other money not go towards the cap, based on legacy with the team.

A soft cap means that there are rules that you are ALLOWED to break, if you choose to take the penalty (usually means paying the other teams).
A hard cap means that there are rules that you can't break.

What I'm proposing is in the 2nd camp.

At least that's how I understand it.

[Phishfan]

We are just looking at it separate ways. The money they are spending in your plan still equates to salary, but you are not counting it against the cap. I'm no lawyer, but I don't know how that would fly on the legal side of things (allowing it for this but not for that kind of thing). I still think that would be considered a soft cap as it is salary and not things like incentives, bonuses, etc. that you are going over the limit with.

[MikeO]

No.  You would only be able to sign your own, homegrown players for a reduced cap hit.  Free agents would still be the full hit.  The idea is that guys at the tail end of their career don't have to switch teams to get fair market value.

But  its still a soft cap what you proposed. Spin it anyway you want, its a soft cap.

It will never happen

[MikeO]

No, I want a hard cap, with one loop-hole.

And thats what makes it a soft cap.

[fyo]

And thats what makes it a soft cap.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Although everything appears to be black-and-white for you, very little about the NFL cap is. The implicit assumption that teams cannot exceed the cap for any reason under the current (former CBA) system in the NFL is incorrect. Salaries are accounted for in many different ways and it's not uncommon for teams to wind up over the cap. The standard punishment for this is a corresponding reduction in the following year's cap. If a team *knows* it's over the cap, it cannot sign new players (but it may not know that it is).

Additionally, even if a team is over (or at) the cap, there are still charges that can occur over which the team has little influence. One example of the latter is if a player meets the (performance) criteria for voiding one or more seasons of his contract. In that situation, any pro-rated money is immediately accelerated and counted against the current cap. The issue is muddied further with different rules for acceleration (specifically avoiding it by retaining the player in the voided years with an extension or new contract) depending on whether the performance criteria were deemed "likely to be earned" (LTBE) or not (NLTBE). Note furthermore that these designations have strict definitions bearing little relationship to the actual likelihood of the criteria being met.

[masterfins]

I would like to see a percentage of each teams' revenues allocated to a fund to pay for new stadiums, so that the taxpayers don't have to.

[MikeO]

Maybe. Maybe not.

Although everything appears to be black-and-white for you, very little about the NFL cap is.

A HARD CAP vs SOFT CAP is as "black and white" as it gets. I'm sorry. There is no inbetween

[MikeO]

Additionally, even if a team is over (or at) the cap, there are still charges that can occur over which the team has little influence. One example of the latter is if a player meets the (performance) criteria for voiding one or more seasons of his contract. In that situation, any pro-rated money is immediately accelerated and counted against the current cap. The issue is muddied further with different rules for acceleration (specifically avoiding it by retaining the player in the voided years with an extension or new contract) depending on whether the performance criteria were deemed "likely to be earned" (LTBE) or not (NLTBE). Note furthermore that these designations have strict definitions bearing little relationship to the actual likelihood of the criteria being met.

What you just described is a SOFT CAP!!

[fyo]

What you just described is a SOFT CAP!!

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.

So what does that make your argument that Dave's proposed change would never happen because it's a soft cap?

[Phishfan]

Maybe. Maybe not.

Although everything appears to be black-and-white for you, very little about the NFL cap is. The implicit assumption that teams cannot exceed the cap for any reason under the current (former CBA) system in the NFL is incorrect. Salaries are accounted for in many different ways and it's not uncommon for teams to wind up over the cap. The standard punishment for this is a corresponding reduction in the following year's cap. If a team *knows* it's over the cap, it cannot sign new players (but it may not know that it is).

Additionally, even if a team is over (or at) the cap, there are still charges that can occur over which the team has little influence. One example of the latter is if a player meets the (performance) criteria for voiding one or more seasons of his contract. In that situation, any pro-rated money is immediately accelerated and counted against the current cap. The issue is muddied further with different rules for acceleration (specifically avoiding it by retaining the player in the voided years with an extension or new contract) depending on whether the performance criteria were deemed "likely to be earned" (LTBE) or not (NLTBE). Note furthermore that these designations have strict definitions bearing little relationship to the actual likelihood of the criteria being met.

While teams do go over the cap, to my knowledge that has always happened before the cap deadline hits. Once that deadline is reached they must have made the adjustments to comply. So technically it does happen, but I don't know of it being very common. Also the punishment can be much higher than just adjusting next year's cap. It can include loss of draft picks, cancellation of existing contacts, fines, etc. While there is a gray area, it is pretty black and white once the deadline comes, you have to be under the cap without excuses.

[fyo]

While there is a gray area, it is pretty black and white once the deadline comes, you have to be under the cap without excuses.

The "voided years" issue happens regularly and is not considered "cheating". There's a simple "penalty" for going over in that manner (lowered cap the following year).

Another very common one is incentives for e.g. winning the Super Bowl. If you look at the total salaries for teams that win the Super Bowl, they are often quite high compared to other teams. Part of this is NLTBE incentive bonuses with the criteria being "winning the Super Bowl".

Now, there's a big difference between these issues and purposefully going over the limit during the season. Those instances should be caught by the NFL, as all contracts are subject to league approval, but contracts being contracts, sometimes teams manage shady things. Such underhanded dealings will result in the penalties you describe (the 49ers, for instance, were fined for just such an offense in 2000, in addition to forfeiture of a 3rd and a 5th round draft pick the following seasons).

These rules, and much more, is covered on any one of the numerous sites around the web dedicated to "capology". Ask The Commish is a good team-neutral one. A good place to start would be their FAQ: http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/faq.asp

EDIT: Just to nitpick... there is no "deadline". The salary cap is (was) ALWAYS applicable. All contracts subject to league approval. If e.g. cutting a player gets you over the cap, you have 7 days to get it back under. In the meantime, you cannot sign anyone.

[Phishfan]

EDIT: Just to nitpick... there is no "deadline". The salary cap is (was) ALWAYS applicable. All contracts subject to league approval. If e.g. cutting a player gets you over the cap, you have 7 days to get it back under. In the meantime, you cannot sign anyone.

Thanks for the links. There is a period during the offseason where these teams do not completely fall under the salary cap. They have signed vet free agents, have their own talent under contract, have been at the draft, and signed UDFAs. The salary cap only counts against the top portion of the team (somewhere around the number included on the active roster). So technically they are still complying.