Stephen on "All-In" - "We spend max, max money year in and year out

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We aren't talking about cap.

We are talking about actual cash spent under the same cap constraints all teams operate with.

Cash spent is cash spent. And over the last decade, the Cowboys have spent less actual cash on their roster than a majority of NFL teams.

The two go hand in hand. If you spend cash on a player either it counted for that cap or prorated over 2-5 more years and applied to those years. If cash is not spent it does not count against the cap and that extra cap space always moves forward.

So all that cash that was not spent against the cap over that 11 year period you are fearmongering would result in an equivalent amount of rollover cap space.

 

[birdwells1]

These guys make me sick

"The Cowboys, like it or not, have spent less cash on their team over the last decade than almost any other NFL team. They ranked 25th in cash spend from 2013-2016, 32nd from 2016-2019, and 30th from 2021-2023. That’s as clear a pattern as you’re going to get."

 

[NumOneQB]

They’re full of **** and have been exposed for not spending.

 

[KingCorcoran]

Alright, so the people who come on here and say ridiculous things like hey it's been 28 years, we haven't got our 4th Super Bowlin the Jerry Jones era but praise A Team who has one single Super Bowl win since 1960... the irony is ridiculous, the hypocrisy is ridiculous,

this is not the worst or longest drought in the NFL, I mean Kansas City are on a nice run right now but it took them 52 years between their Super Bowl wins... That's just one example because they're the hot team right now and they don't spend a whole lot of money and they're not mortgaging Jack bro... go check what they've done the last three off seasons, show me this aggressive big time blueprint that the Kansas City Chiefs who are beating teams like the Eagles and the 49ers who are the most aggressive...

So when you stop having that green ooze come down the side of your mouth maybe you understand that it's ridiculous to use them as some kind of blueprint when they basically have one Super Bowl since 1960 and Jerry has three since 1989.. Heck, the The Mavericks, stars and Rangers only have three total in their entire existence and yet you think it's so bad and abnormal to have a 28-year drought and to be off cycle, I get the frustration but that's a ridiculous way to view this... I see the fact that the Dallas Cowboys with Jerry Jones has three titles since 1989 show me how many other teams have 3 Lombardi trophies in the same period.. That list I'm predicting will be very short..

It's not about 28 years that's what he's done since he's been here and I realized the frustration about the lack of and if the championship games and even an appearance in the Super bowl but this is just ridiculous dude, we are contenders... It isn't ending well in the playoffs but we are competing for the playoffs... I'm just disappointed and upset as anyone but I see every year as a one off not a culmination of 28 years just like it's week to week during the year it's also year to year to me it's a new year it's time to freaking look forward to 2024 and if it turns out to be another disaster we can discuss it after the season but Jesus people let it go it ended a long time ago when the clock went to zero against Green Bay it's over it's time to shift our focus to September....

Does the Eagles poor history make them a bad team now? Conversely, does the Cowboys great history make them a great team now? This is where fans share their thoughts about what seems to be happening now. Everyone knows or can easily look up what happened in the past. Back off with your tirades.

 

[Flamma]

this is not the worst or longest drought in the NFL, I mean Kansas City are on a nice run right now but it took them 52 years between their Super Bowl wins... That's just one example because they're the hot team right now and they don't spend a whole lot of money and they're not mortgaging Jack bro... go check what they've done the last three off seasons, show me this aggressive big time blueprint that the Kansas City Chiefs who are beating teams like the Eagles and the 49ers who are the most aggressive...

Your point doesn't work when you're using a team that has the best QB in the league by far. No, they don't have to mortgage the future. He's also the only QB that can win being a 17% cap hit as well. That's not the case for the rest of the league.

In the past 7 years the 49ers and Eagles have been in the SB 4 times. I also don't think I've mentioned 28 years. I know teams have waited longer. Most of the league is not aggressive.

A lot of teams that go to or win SBs trail off because they can't maintain the talent that took them there. Again, KC doesn't have that problem. Dallas never has the talent to get there.

 

[kskboys]

I am so glad that everyone with a brain has turned against the Jones clan.

It was back in 09 for me. That clusterfudge of a draft made zero sense.

 

[Sydla]

That is not ETL. What are the columns in the NFLPA and how were they added. The point is you do not know what the base DBs look like certainly not in that neat format of cash or the one possible breakdown you bring here.

So how did each 2-4 year study calculate it?

The CBA spells out how to calculate cash spent. It’s not complicated.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The CBA spells out how to calculate cash spent. It’s not complicated.

The way it was determined from the original database is not.

I am talking about how the data was actually determined and you keep insisting on how you would do it.

Get over yourself and admit that you do not know how the data was mined in any of the datasets. And who is not the answer.

 

[cald0d30s0]

You know, I admire this guy. He is a genius (almost as an AI) on creating different ways to make an excuse about whatever marketing term his dad uses.

Man, I imagine him thinking, “hmmm, what should I say to sound not that stupid?”.

 

[Sydla]

The way it was determined from the original database is not.

I am talking about how the data was actually determined and you keep insisting on how you would do it.

Get over yourself and admit that you do not know how the data was mined in any of the datasets. And who is not the answer.

Not how I would do it. How the CBA literally spells out how it's calculated.

How is the data determined? Again, it's in the CBA. There's no gray area or interpretation needed. The CBA requires teams spend a certain level of cash over a period and the CBA defines what constitutes cash spent and what goes into the calculation.

But again, let's humor you. Give us an example here, that would support your theory that the cash spent data isn't normalized or standardized or where the cash spent data was mined differently that would show us to put little value into what the NFLPA, for example, has reported as cash spent.

 

[ICP]

There's a big difference between spending money and wasting money

 

[morat1959]

Believe what I say, not what you see…sound familiar?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not how I would do it. How the CBA literally spells out how it's calculated.

How is the data determined? Again, it's in the CBA. There's no gray area or interpretation needed. The CBA requires teams spend a certain level of cash over a period and the CBA defines what constitutes cash spent and what goes into the calculation.

But again, let's humor you. Give us an example here, that would support your theory that the cash spent data isn't normalized or standardized or where the cash spent data was mined differently that would show us to put little value into what the NFLPA, for example, has reported as cash spent.

What is not the answer either. You doubled down on the who anyway again. Nice. I asked for how, reading is fundamental.

Please show any proof that any one of the studies you quoted "use the CBA." Also let's quote the CBA or one of the data studies as opposed to take your word. Nevermind, the CBA has been adjusted in the past 11 years

And let's humor me by putting the onus on me and granting yourself presumption? Still resting on authority and lacking in actual logical skills, I see, Crayola. I already established the need for normalization.

And you have completely dropped the cap rollover argument.. Don't know how to dissemble there I guess.

 

[Sydla]

What is not the answer either. You doubled down on the who anyway again. Nice. I asked for how, reading is fundamental.

Please show any proof that any one of the studies you quoted "use the CBA." Also let's quote the CBA or one of the data studies as opposed to take your word. Nevermind, the CBA has been adjusted in the past 11 years

And let's humor me by putting the onus on me and granting yourself presumption? Still resting on authority and lacking in actual logical skills, I see, Crayola. I already established the need for normalization.

And you have completely dropped the cap rollover argument.. Don't know how to dissemble there I guess.

Article 12, Section 8 of the 2011 and 2020 CBA define cash spent. The definition/calculation hasn't changed. It also is quite the reach to suggest that the NFLPA would then go and calculate totals for cash spent completely different than how it's defined in the CBA. But I guess when you are floundering here you gotta throw as much as you can at the wall and hope something sticks. There's no need for normalization because the data here is defined, standardized across teams and periods and fairly easily calculated by the NFLPA since they have all the contract data at their disposal (and need to in order to make sure the league is adhering to the CBA requirements).

You took something not overly complicated, went full Dunning-Kruger on us and why? Because, I guess, your fandom was bruised by evidence that shows over the last decade, despite Jerry and Stephen bragging about how much they spend on the team, they actually were one of the lower cash spenders on their roster over that time period.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Article 12, Section 8 of the 2011 and 2020 CBA define cash spent. The definition/calculation hasn't changed. It also is quite the reach to suggest that the NFLPA would then go and calculate totals for cash spent completely different than how it's defined in the CBA. But I guess when you are floundering here you gotta throw as much as you can at the wall and hope something sticks.

Cap rollover has no bearing on simply totaling the actual dollars a team spent in a given year or period of years. It affects how much a team can spend in the following year but the cash spent in a year/period is the cash spent in that period. It's a simple totaling as defined by the CBA. You established no need for normalization because there is no need to normalize cash totals. So either you are just scrambling to try to save face here or you actually are pretty clueless about what you are talking about.

You took something pretty easy, threw some Fuzzy pixie dust on it, and did nothing but embarrass yourself in the process. And why? Because your fandom got hurt because people pointed out that despite Stephen bragging about how much they invest, the actual evidence shows over the last decade they haven't spent as much money on their roster as most other teams in the league.

You still have not shown what the NFLPA or the other sources did in any study. It could have been done this way is not an answer.

For every dollar that was not spent up to the cap there is an equal amount of cap space that moves forward. You do not dispute that and it is pretty sad how you cannot see how that eliminates any significance to your stance. After all the outcome is an equal amount of cap space.

Again, you have no idea what the NFLPA DBs looked like nor what the other non NFLPA study's looked like. You gratuitously presume there is a cash spent column but you to this point have no proven it.

And not all cash spent columns in a resulting database are going compiled the same way. If you can prove they were then you can say you do not need normalization but you don't just discard it out of hand like an ignoramus.

 

[Adreme]

"The Cowboys, like it or not, have spent less cash on their team over the last decade than almost any other NFL team. They ranked 25th in cash spend from 2013-2016, 32nd from 2016-2019, and 30th from 2021-2023. That’s as clear a pattern as you’re going to get."

The pattern being if you pick the year right after your big deals are signed then suddenly you can make a team look like they spent less. Because you can rollover cap, the Cowboys, by the definitions of Math that have existed for over a thousand years, must have spent the same total amount of money as everyone else.

 

[Sydla]

You still have not shown what the NFLPA or the other sources did in any study. It could have been done this way is not an answer.

For every dollar that was not spent up to the cap there is an equal amount of cap space that moves forward. You do not dispute that and it is pretty sad how you cannot see how that eliminates any significance to your stance. After all the outcome is an equal amount of cap space.

Again, you have no idea what the NFLPA DBs looked like nor what the other non NFLPA study's looked like. You gratuitously presume there is a cash spent column but you to this point have no proven it.

And not all cash spent columns in a resulting database are going compiled the same way. If you can prove they were then you can say you do not need normalization but you don't just discard it out of hand like an ignoramus.

Your entire premise is based on this apparent belief that the NFLPA would then go and calculate cash spent differently than how it's defined in the CBA. LOL.

This was a classic Fuzzy exercise. Take something incredibly non-complex, muddy the **** out of it and then pretend like you are smarter than everyone else. All you did here is make yourself look like a stubborn fool all because you didn't like the what the data told us about how the Cowboys have operated over the last 10 years or so.

You can have the last rant.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The pattern being if you pick the year right after your big deals are signed then suddenly you can make a team look like they spent less. Because you can rollover cap, the Cowboys, by the definitions of Math that have existed for over a thousand years, must have spent the same total amount of money as everyone else.

That and there is how BTB stated they made some presumption about prorations that are not valid. Frankly it so opaque as to how any of thee three studies individually or how cobbling together was done they are essentially taking it on faith because they like the outcome.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your entire premise is based on this apparent belief that the NFLPA would then go and calculate cash spent differently than how it's defined in the CBA. LOL.

This was a classic Fuzzy exercise. Take something incredibly non-complex, muddy the **** out of it and then pretend like you are smarter than everyone else. All you did here is make yourself look like a stubborn fool all because you didn't like the what the data told us about how the Cowboys have operated over the last 10 years or so.

You can have the last rant.

First it was not just the NFLPA and I have no idea how they did it or that they did it the same way.

You as usual want presumption and authority and I am just asking you to back your word. All you have is incredulity and no backing your word.

That actually is typical Crayola similar to how you bring up a supposed law degree when you are losing arguments.

And we would remind you that your feared outcome has no bite. Instead it has dollar for dollar capspace for every dollar not spent up to the cap.

 

[Sydla]

First it was not just the NFLPA and I have no idea how they did it or that they did it the same way.

You as usual want presumption and authority and I am just asking you to back your word. All you have is incredulity and no backing your word.

That actually is typical Crayola similar to how you bring up a supposed law degree when you are losing arguments.

Huh?