CFZ NFL Salary Cap Solution

[TwoDeep3]

I don't think you realize how many small market team owners are more than happy to go cheap (it's easy to do and stay within the cap minimum rules) by keeping a fan favorite or two and then collecting their free money from other teams for being cheap.

Now, as more small market teams are sold to richer owners, corporations and investment groups, that will probably change.

As it is right now, the worst thing you can do is finish around .500.

It incentivizes teams who have good coaches, a better-than-average quarterback and a solid offense and defense to go all in while it pushes teams without good coaches or without a good quarterback or that have poor offenses or defenses to just release or trade their best players away, especially if they were free agent signings.

What I would like is a system that would entice teams to compete more with each other and not just limit that to the teams with the deep pockets who are also willing to spend their money.

Your first comment is an assumption I don't believe you can project on the comments I have made. I fully understand there are owners who like having a profit center and do not ever plan to risk to grab the brass ring. Thus the rules of minimum income used for payroll in the cap era which dictates franchises who will never be competitive unless good fortune smiles on them.

Having said this, equity in this league has been tried with the idea of parity. To me parity was lip service by the league to keep the casual fans of teams that have never been in the hunt for the play-offs interested. Where hearing the league's explanations for rule changes that make no sense, and the way penalties are governed, I am reminded of Redd Foxx's comments as Dolemite when he said, "I see your lips quivering, Unc, but can't hear a - - - - - - - - - - - word you say." What comes out of the mouths of the league is reproduced by every large corporation who struggles with image. What astounds me are the people who believe every word uttered.

You are correct about .500. Dallas is essentially in that rut and has been for a number of years, maybe decades. Even 7-9 to 10-6 is the kiss of death because of draft slotting. Obviously I speak about the 16 game schedule.

The point of this thread was to get people thinking about the cap and ideas. This notion will go no where, unless, by chance, one of the journalists who frequents here decided it is a slow news day and they need something to write about. The NBA style is not perfect. Unless you are an NBA owner who has a 12 man bench and an ability to pay for the next level toward a championship.

Yet, while I do believe that Dak can get the job done if the front office is aware enough that the offensive line is the eye of the hurricane for the offense and building it to protect and open running lanes is the answer, and not this one player is all you need myopia passed off as football knowledge. Dak's salary does hamstring this franchise, and the league allows it to be a problem that cripples possibilities of teams joining the fray who are never in the conversation.

I suppose a subsequent conversation might be about a quiet movement by the league to change ownerships of franchises who are satisfied with non-competition, and aggressively attract owners who are willing to strive for the Lombardi. That flies in the face of personal property, but then Danny Snyder just got ousted, so measures could be taken behind the scene.

Then a tax leveling action could make the smaller markets players and the league truly competitive. Or I am having a flashback from a series of poor choices I made in the late sixties that is spilling out on this page.

 

[Creeper]

I wish the NFL would change the CAP rule and allow some leeway for star vets who have played on one team their entire career. But the NFL wants parity before anything which means a hard CAP, no exceptions. They don't want a Jerry Jones, for example, overpaying his players then paying some kind of fine for going over the CAP. even if that money is shared by the poorer teams. The current CAP sucks for the fans but the league does have parity for the most part.

What could change the current CAP is QB salaries which are growing much faster than the CAP. If this continues the league may be forced to figure out a way to reduce the CAP impact of QBs.

 

[john van brocklin]

He's my brother-in-law. I got him his job. He's never said thanks.

Lol
Not my favorite commish after he hosed zeke with the unfair suspension

 

[Vanilla2]

The Joneses would get get on board to something like this.

 

[jrumann59]

First of all, great post TD.

I have believed for years that the NBA has a much better cap system in place. The “softer” cap is better for the game, the fans, and the flexibility that comes with it. The NFL could adopt a soft cap that doesn’t have to be exactly like the NBA, but still containing some flexibility.

The “Bird rule” allows NBA teams to keep their star players longer at market price without destroying their cap space. That’s why it’s better for the game and the fans. If you draft and develop a star player, it benefits everyone that the home team keeps that player if both the player and the team can negotiate a deal. It’s a win-win. And NBA owners aren’t exactly losing money.

Unfortunately, there’s only ONE reason the NFL chooses to keep a hard cap: Greed. It benefits the owners to the max to have a hard cap. The soft cap would still allow owners to make huge profits…just not quite as much. Turns out greed is a very bad thing- in sports and everything else.

To an extent the NBA is different what they have a 15 man roster, and one superstar and upper tier player can make you playoff contender. Whereas absence of one or both make you a lottery team. The NFL paying say the QB stupid amounts of money only guarantees mediocrity if the QB is slightly above average which most QBs in the NFL are.

 

[Hoofbite]

What problem are we fixing here?

 

[plasticman]

Intriguing.

Teams that are excellent at drafting are no longer penalized by not being able to retain them other than a monetary "tax".

 

[Flamma]

Perhaps the NBA has a legitimate solution to the salary cap era of the NFL.

As it stands there is a soft cap for the NBA. Teams can pay up to that cap without any financial penalty.

There is what is called the Larry Byrd rule, which allows a team to pay a player who is currently on the team a salary which pushes the franchise over the cap.

Finally there is a two tiered system wherein the team over the cap may continue to pay higher salaries, and the two tiers are essentially two distinct penalties factored in a dollar amount. The first is 1.50 and the second is 4.75 above the cap at a per dollar cost. The money gleaned from these penalties is distributed to the other owners and players who stay under the cap.

The NBA salary cap, as of last year was 123.665 million.

If I understand this it works this way.

Let's say the cap with the NFL is 190 million. Teams can safely stay under that dollar amount.

The Byrd rule, which surely would be called something else - I prefer The Goodell Is An Egg Sucking Dog Rule - would allow teams to pay up to 224.8 million, which allows them to pay a QB without penalty.

Finally, teams can exceed the 224.8 million at a penalty price.

Let's say Team A has exceeded the soft cap of 190 million, then added another 34.8 million to retain their QB. This puts them at the 224.8 million threshold. They have heavily played the free agent market and spent an extra amount which surpasses that amount and is paying 250 million in salary.

The extra 25.2 million would be taxed at 1.75 dollars to the tune of another 44.1 million dollars. This would mean the salary of this team would be 190 million soft cap, plus 34.8 million Goodell Wears Lacy Panties cap, plus 25.2 exceeding the second level of the cap, plus an additional 44.1 million.

This money would be distributed to teams in softer markets who cannot afford to exceed the cap.

190 million soft cap
34.8 million Goodell is a mouth breather cap
25.2 million over spent above secondary cap
44.1 million penalty tax distributed among players and owners
Equals 294.1 million for one year

Now I do not pretend to be a capologist, but the price of QB's is headed to a point where teams will invest so much in one position - with the fallacy that the QB is the only reason a team wins....think not, read the posts here to validate that frame of mind - and then you will see the have's and have not's in the league where a guy is playing for peanuts so the team can pay one player 65 million a year.

The upheaval this creates reminds me of the Great Depression - no I did not live through that time - that there will be a crash and the league will turn into something unrecognizable as the have not's strike every year, and this turns in to the league surfing the crap tide.

I believe I can point to one owner who looks remarkably like Skeletor that would pay whatever it cost to win a Super Bowl to show the entire football world he is a football guy.

I understand there are some swank pawn shops that give pay day loans on yachts.

Thoughts?

Ask yourself something, will this cost owners more money? They will not spend money to better the game. They'll only make changes if they start losing money. Like MLB.

Also keep in mind that Jerry was a big proponent of the hard cap.

Other than that minor detail, I love the idea. Another idea put forth awhile ago was to give a cap discount for 2nd contracts to players drafted by the team.

But again, we run into the same problem. However, they'd save on free agents, as their value would drop. How dramatically, I don't know.

 

[Vanilla2]

The Joneses would get get on board to something like this.

Supposed to say would not.

 

[CATCH17]

Does the NFL think it’s has a cap issue.

Nope. They love the parity.

And signing guys like Dak are great for business even though it’s clear that it’s bad for trying to win a Super Bowl.

I want Superbowls. The owners want to make money.

 

[xwalker]

Perhaps the NBA has a legitimate solution to the salary cap era of the NFL.

As it stands there is a soft cap for the NBA. Teams can pay up to that cap without any financial penalty.

There is what is called the Larry Byrd rule, which allows a team to pay a player who is currently on the team a salary which pushes the franchise over the cap.

Finally there is a two tiered system wherein the team over the cap may continue to pay higher salaries, and the two tiers are essentially two distinct penalties factored in a dollar amount. The first is 1.50 and the second is 4.75 above the cap at a per dollar cost. The money gleaned from these penalties is distributed to the other owners and players who stay under the cap.

The NBA salary cap, as of last year was 123.665 million.

If I understand this it works this way.

Let's say the cap with the NFL is 190 million. Teams can safely stay under that dollar amount.

The Byrd rule, which surely would be called something else - I prefer The Goodell Is An Egg Sucking Dog Rule - would allow teams to pay up to 224.8 million, which allows them to pay a QB without penalty.

Finally, teams can exceed the 224.8 million at a penalty price.

Let's say Team A has exceeded the soft cap of 190 million, then added another 34.8 million to retain their QB. This puts them at the 224.8 million threshold. They have heavily played the free agent market and spent an extra amount which surpasses that amount and is paying 250 million in salary.

The extra 25.2 million would be taxed at 1.75 dollars to the tune of another 44.1 million dollars. This would mean the salary of this team would be 190 million soft cap, plus 34.8 million Goodell Wears Lacy Panties cap, plus 25.2 exceeding the second level of the cap, plus an additional 44.1 million.

This money would be distributed to teams in softer markets who cannot afford to exceed the cap.

190 million soft cap
34.8 million Goodell is a mouth breather cap
25.2 million over spent above secondary cap
44.1 million penalty tax distributed among players and owners
Equals 294.1 million for one year

Now I do not pretend to be a capologist, but the price of QB's is headed to a point where teams will invest so much in one position - with the fallacy that the QB is the only reason a team wins....think not, read the posts here to validate that frame of mind - and then you will see the have's and have not's in the league where a guy is playing for peanuts so the team can pay one player 65 million a year.

The upheaval this creates reminds me of the Great Depression - no I did not live through that time - that there will be a crash and the league will turn into something unrecognizable as the have not's strike every year, and this turns in to the league surfing the crap tide.

I believe I can point to one owner who looks remarkably like Skeletor that would pay whatever it cost to win a Super Bowl to show the entire football world he is a football guy.

I understand there are some swank pawn shops that give pay day loans on yachts.

Thoughts?

The purpose of the cap is to control costs and assure profits.

Top QB salaries as a percent of the cap have remaining relatively consistent (Range of 15% to 20%).

 

[sunalsorises]

There are lots of ways to try to redo the cap. It would be nice if teams could keep their own players but things are how everybody wants them, except for maybe the franchise tags. Owners don't like having to pay players and that is true of all professions and business models. Generally, the union negotiates salaries and then there is a pay chart that factors in years of service, credentials, and whatever else to determine salary. It's strange to have a union and still have players negotiate their own salaries. Overpaying a QB means less money for the backup guard and that's who the union should be working to help.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Nope. They love the parity.

And signing guys like Dak are great for business even though it’s clear that it’s bad for trying to win a Super Bowl.

I want Superbowls. The owners want to make money.

You make SBs you make money.

 

[JohnBoy]

All this would do is make QB's demand even higher salaries. And the same problem would eventually unfold.

Same thing happens with mortgage rates: raise them and seems like it will make home purchases further out of reach to more consumers. But that also puts downward pressure on home prices, so it ends up roughly evening out. Lower rates, and it makes financing more reachable to more consumers. But that also causes home prices to increase.

 

[zrinkill]

NFL owners greatest money making scheme

1. Create Salary Cap
2. Pretend to be hampered by said Cap that they created.
3. Convince dumb fans that the players are gready for wanting to much of the Cap room so that fans will turn on said players.
4. Play players the least amount possible compared to their vast wealth.
5. Rake in Billions and Billions of dollars each year.

 

[DallasEast]

I wish the NFL would change the CAP rule and allow some leeway for star vets who have played on one team their entire career. But the NFL wants parity before anything which means a hard CAP, no exceptions.

Yep. The current salary cap/free agency system began in 1993. I yelled about it starting the day the collective bargaining agreement was ratified. Enforced parity was easy to foresee.

Eventually, I stopped complaining about it by the mid-2000's and accepted it. The dynasties created by the previous eras of the NFL died before the turn of the century. The closest thing since has been the New England Patriots, a pale shadow of what used to be true on-the-field dominance displayed by a few teams each decade back then.

 

[Longboysfan]

First of all, great post TD.

I have believed for years that the NBA has a much better cap system in place. The “softer” cap is better for the game, the fans, and the flexibility that comes with it. The NFL could adopt a soft cap that doesn’t have to be exactly like the NBA, but still containing some flexibility.

The “Bird rule” allows NBA teams to keep their star players longer at market price without destroying their cap space. That’s why it’s better for the game and the fans. If you draft and develop a star player, it benefits everyone that the home team keeps that player if both the player and the team can negotiate a deal. It’s a win-win. And NBA owners aren’t exactly losing money.

Unfortunately, there’s only ONE reason the NFL chooses to keep a hard cap: Greed. It benefits the owners to the max to have a hard cap. The soft cap would still allow owners to make huge profits…just not quite as much. Turns out greed is a very bad thing- in sports and everything else.

Greed pushes it all.
If there was a soft CAP Jerry has the coin to sign a lot of players.
Cowboys would benefit it the most of all other NFL teams.

 

[zrinkill]

Greed pushes it all.
If there was a soft CAP Jerry has the coin to sign a lot of players.
Cowboys would benefit it the most of all other NFL teams.

Not anymore now that Walmart has joined the fray

 

[charron]

The NFL doesn't have a salary cap issue. Their hard cap works better than most other sports industries.

 

[HungryLion]

I think both systems have their own share of positives and negatives.

So that said, I don’t think changing the structure of the NFL cap is really a priority. It works fine. Honestly, even if a team goes all out and sinks a bunch of huge money into a bunch of free agents and it doesn’t work out. It only takes them a year or two to get their cap back into a good situation.