Dough Boy
Seldom Seen
- Messages
- 2,147
- Reaction score
- 0
By REED ALBERGOTTI
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...74489773943949070.html?mod=article-outset-box
What's Behind All the NFL Blowouts
Loopholes in the League's Vaunted Salary Cap Help Some Teams Spend to Win—and Lose
One of the fundamental principles of the National Football League is that every team should have a realistic shot at winning every time it steps on the field. This season, that's not the case.
The strongest teams, like the New England Patriots and New Orleans Saints, have looked unstoppable at times, while weak ones like the Detroit Lions seem exceptionally hapless. There have been six shutouts, the highest number since 1994, and 20 blowouts of 21 points or more, the second-highest number in the past 39 years. Even more troubling is that for the first time since the beginning of the modern NFL, seven teams have zeroes in their records, meaning they've either won or lost every game they've played.
According to team executives, agents and union officials, this season's results point to a larger truth about the league that has, until now, only been the subject of whispers. The engine the NFL uses to enforce parity—a cap on player salaries—has so many loopholes, they say, that it no longer prevents teams from spending drastically different amounts on talent. And while it's difficult to make a precise connection, there's evidence that this imbalance may be responsible for lackluster games.
"I don't know that the salary cap has made it a better league at all," says Bobby Beathard, the two-time Super Bowl winning general manager for the Washington Commanders. "It's a little bit of a mirage," says David Modell, the former president of the Baltimore Ravens.
The NFL says the salary cap works and that it has achieved its main purpose. "A handful of teams can't hoard all the talent," says spokesman Greg Aiello. He cites cases in which lowly teams have turned it around quickly. "That's why the Arizona Cardinals can go to the Super Bowl."
Exotic Concept
When it was first implemented in 1994, the NFL's salary cap was an exotic concept. In America, as in the rest of the world, the norm was that team owners with the most money could get an advantage by hoarding the best players. After the cap was announced, a spokesman said it would "create a level playing field for all the clubs."
Long snapper Andrew Economos of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers seeks relief from the heat during a 24-0 loss to the New York Giants in Week 3.
In embracing the cap, the NFL's owners not only agreed to spending limits, they agreed to a salary floor (about 85% of the cap) that would prevent them from cutting back to generate higher profits. The players agreed to limit their own compensation, but were assured of earning a set portion of all the league's revenue.
For fans, as well as television networks and advertisers, this model of competitive socialism—a cost-controlled league where anything could happen on any given Sunday—was a seductive proposition. When the New England Patriots won the 2002 Super Bowl just one season after being among the dregs of the league, the cap's mystique reached an all-time high.
A 1994 Cleveland Plain Dealer column called it "an ingenious work of art that should be copied by all sports." A 2002 article in the Australian said the NFL's uncertain outcome every year was "a testament to the benefits of a strictly enforced salary cap." A 2006 editorial in the Economist called for soccer's English Premier League to adopt the same system.
As this decade progressed, however, the cap's greatest flaw came to light—it was vulnerable to its own success. As the NFL's TV contracts doubled and the value of its franchises crept above $1 billion for the first time, the annual cap number—the limit teams had to abide by—began to grow by as much as 25% per season. Teams started to realize that if they overspent in one season, the growth in the cap number would cover their excesses in the next one.
By 2005, Michael Duberstein, the former head of research for the NFL player's union, said it was clear that clubs were spending a lot more for players than the cap should have theoretically allowed.
"If there was a player out there and you were at the top of the cap, I don't know of an instance where you couldn't get that player," says Red McCombs, the former owner of the Minnesota Vikings.
Another flaw in the cap system is its complexity. To give teams flexibility to cover for injuries and trades and to keep some of their star players, the cap wasn't based on the dollars teams actually deposited in the bank accounts of players that season. It also factored in other payments the team had made earlier or would have to make in the future.
To manage their payrolls, teams hired "capologists" to find new ways to interpret the rules and to push actual spending up or down based on the owners' wishes. Agents say teams looking to spend less—or more—than the minimum have found loopholes.
A person familiar with the finances of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers says that last season, the team signed two free-agents, running back Noah Herron and defensive end Patrick Chukwurah, for contracts that totalled $25 million. Under the rules of the salary cap, the Buccaneers were charged that full amount for the players. But to actually earn that money, each player had to, among other things, block six punts apiece—an exceedingly difficult prospect. In the end, neither player ended up taking a single snap. Mr. Herron was paid $157,000 and Mr. Chukwurah $71,000, although the team's salary-cap number reflected the full value of their contracts. Tampa Bay, which ranked among the lowest teams in spending last season, has lost all six of its games. Tampa Bay and NFL officials declined to comment.
The Vikings Surge
On the other side of the ledger, teams that want to spend more than the cap allows have found ways to do so. This season, the Minnesota Vikings have surged to an unbeaten start after putting on one of the league's biggest spending sprees. According to people familiar with the numbers, the Vikings spent $7 million in cash over the cap last season to get free agents like defensive end Jared Allen. In the off-season, the team picked up quarterback Brett Favre for $12 million.
Last season, six teams spent less than the league's official salary minimum in actual dollars, while 13 teams spent above the maximum, according to a person familiar with the matter. This season, the spread between the league's biggest payroll and the smallest was a whopping $66 million, enough to cover Indianapolis quarterback Peyton Manning's salary six times over.
While it's not clear how much a team's actual spending translates to wins and losses, a person who has seen these figures says that some of the NFL's better teams, the Vikings, the New York Giants and last year's champions—the Pittsburgh Steelers—have been near the top of the pile in actual spending while two of its worst—the Kansas City Chiefs and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, are at the bottom.
The NFL says the cap is strictly enforced, and that the teams are working within the rules. Mr. Aiello, the NFL spokesman, says the loopholes in the salary cap system were meant to give teams flexibility, all the money teams spend—or don't spend—is "all accounted for at some point."
As the league enters the last year of its collective-bargaining agreement with the players union, the salary cap's fate is uncertain. If the league's owners and the players don't agree on a new contract soon, the salary cap will disappear next season.
Some people think the league's competitive disparities will only increase. Others say they're willing to bet against that. Joe Mendes, who worked as a capologist for the Washington Commanders, says ultimately, money alone will never win a championship. It's "culture and personality of the franchise," that matters.
Write to Reed Albergotti at reed.albergotti@wsj.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...74489773943949070.html?mod=article-outset-box
What's Behind All the NFL Blowouts
Loopholes in the League's Vaunted Salary Cap Help Some Teams Spend to Win—and Lose
One of the fundamental principles of the National Football League is that every team should have a realistic shot at winning every time it steps on the field. This season, that's not the case.
The strongest teams, like the New England Patriots and New Orleans Saints, have looked unstoppable at times, while weak ones like the Detroit Lions seem exceptionally hapless. There have been six shutouts, the highest number since 1994, and 20 blowouts of 21 points or more, the second-highest number in the past 39 years. Even more troubling is that for the first time since the beginning of the modern NFL, seven teams have zeroes in their records, meaning they've either won or lost every game they've played.
According to team executives, agents and union officials, this season's results point to a larger truth about the league that has, until now, only been the subject of whispers. The engine the NFL uses to enforce parity—a cap on player salaries—has so many loopholes, they say, that it no longer prevents teams from spending drastically different amounts on talent. And while it's difficult to make a precise connection, there's evidence that this imbalance may be responsible for lackluster games.
"I don't know that the salary cap has made it a better league at all," says Bobby Beathard, the two-time Super Bowl winning general manager for the Washington Commanders. "It's a little bit of a mirage," says David Modell, the former president of the Baltimore Ravens.
The NFL says the salary cap works and that it has achieved its main purpose. "A handful of teams can't hoard all the talent," says spokesman Greg Aiello. He cites cases in which lowly teams have turned it around quickly. "That's why the Arizona Cardinals can go to the Super Bowl."
Exotic Concept
When it was first implemented in 1994, the NFL's salary cap was an exotic concept. In America, as in the rest of the world, the norm was that team owners with the most money could get an advantage by hoarding the best players. After the cap was announced, a spokesman said it would "create a level playing field for all the clubs."
Long snapper Andrew Economos of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers seeks relief from the heat during a 24-0 loss to the New York Giants in Week 3.
In embracing the cap, the NFL's owners not only agreed to spending limits, they agreed to a salary floor (about 85% of the cap) that would prevent them from cutting back to generate higher profits. The players agreed to limit their own compensation, but were assured of earning a set portion of all the league's revenue.
For fans, as well as television networks and advertisers, this model of competitive socialism—a cost-controlled league where anything could happen on any given Sunday—was a seductive proposition. When the New England Patriots won the 2002 Super Bowl just one season after being among the dregs of the league, the cap's mystique reached an all-time high.
A 1994 Cleveland Plain Dealer column called it "an ingenious work of art that should be copied by all sports." A 2002 article in the Australian said the NFL's uncertain outcome every year was "a testament to the benefits of a strictly enforced salary cap." A 2006 editorial in the Economist called for soccer's English Premier League to adopt the same system.
As this decade progressed, however, the cap's greatest flaw came to light—it was vulnerable to its own success. As the NFL's TV contracts doubled and the value of its franchises crept above $1 billion for the first time, the annual cap number—the limit teams had to abide by—began to grow by as much as 25% per season. Teams started to realize that if they overspent in one season, the growth in the cap number would cover their excesses in the next one.
By 2005, Michael Duberstein, the former head of research for the NFL player's union, said it was clear that clubs were spending a lot more for players than the cap should have theoretically allowed.
"If there was a player out there and you were at the top of the cap, I don't know of an instance where you couldn't get that player," says Red McCombs, the former owner of the Minnesota Vikings.
Another flaw in the cap system is its complexity. To give teams flexibility to cover for injuries and trades and to keep some of their star players, the cap wasn't based on the dollars teams actually deposited in the bank accounts of players that season. It also factored in other payments the team had made earlier or would have to make in the future.
To manage their payrolls, teams hired "capologists" to find new ways to interpret the rules and to push actual spending up or down based on the owners' wishes. Agents say teams looking to spend less—or more—than the minimum have found loopholes.
A person familiar with the finances of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers says that last season, the team signed two free-agents, running back Noah Herron and defensive end Patrick Chukwurah, for contracts that totalled $25 million. Under the rules of the salary cap, the Buccaneers were charged that full amount for the players. But to actually earn that money, each player had to, among other things, block six punts apiece—an exceedingly difficult prospect. In the end, neither player ended up taking a single snap. Mr. Herron was paid $157,000 and Mr. Chukwurah $71,000, although the team's salary-cap number reflected the full value of their contracts. Tampa Bay, which ranked among the lowest teams in spending last season, has lost all six of its games. Tampa Bay and NFL officials declined to comment.
The Vikings Surge
On the other side of the ledger, teams that want to spend more than the cap allows have found ways to do so. This season, the Minnesota Vikings have surged to an unbeaten start after putting on one of the league's biggest spending sprees. According to people familiar with the numbers, the Vikings spent $7 million in cash over the cap last season to get free agents like defensive end Jared Allen. In the off-season, the team picked up quarterback Brett Favre for $12 million.
Last season, six teams spent less than the league's official salary minimum in actual dollars, while 13 teams spent above the maximum, according to a person familiar with the matter. This season, the spread between the league's biggest payroll and the smallest was a whopping $66 million, enough to cover Indianapolis quarterback Peyton Manning's salary six times over.
While it's not clear how much a team's actual spending translates to wins and losses, a person who has seen these figures says that some of the NFL's better teams, the Vikings, the New York Giants and last year's champions—the Pittsburgh Steelers—have been near the top of the pile in actual spending while two of its worst—the Kansas City Chiefs and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, are at the bottom.
The NFL says the cap is strictly enforced, and that the teams are working within the rules. Mr. Aiello, the NFL spokesman, says the loopholes in the salary cap system were meant to give teams flexibility, all the money teams spend—or don't spend—is "all accounted for at some point."
As the league enters the last year of its collective-bargaining agreement with the players union, the salary cap's fate is uncertain. If the league's owners and the players don't agree on a new contract soon, the salary cap will disappear next season.
Some people think the league's competitive disparities will only increase. Others say they're willing to bet against that. Joe Mendes, who worked as a capologist for the Washington Commanders, says ultimately, money alone will never win a championship. It's "culture and personality of the franchise," that matters.
Write to Reed Albergotti at reed.albergotti@wsj.com