How can this happen ? (1 Viewer)

[Spiderman]

From Dan Pompei's (Chicago Tribune) recent column about the NFL Salary Cap:

how can this happen?

In 2006, the Bears spent $97 million on player costs—or $36 million less than the Colts. Is it any wonder the Bears lost to the Colts in the Super Bowl? Indianapolis led the league in spending as well as passer rating.

 

[ack34]

Sour grapes.

 

[WIFANBOY]

From Dan Pompei's (Chicago Tribune) recent column about the NFL Salary Cap:how can this happen? In 2006, the Bears spent $97 million on player costs—or $36 million less than the Colts. Is it any wonder the Bears lost to the Colts in the Super Bowl? Indianapolis led the league in spending as well as passer rating.

I thought he explained it well, i.e. family owned team with limited resources.

 

[Slinger]

Is it any wonder the Bears lost to the Colts in the Super Bowl?

Yeah because making the Super Bowl sucks.

 

[awesomeness]

Is it any wonder the Bears lost to the Colts in the Super Bowl?

Yeah because making the Super Bowl sucks.

You're telling me. The Saints have had it right the whole time

 

[mcjc4]

From Dan Pompei's (Chicago Tribune) recent column about the NFL Salary Cap:

how can this happen?

In 2006, the Bears spent $97 million on player costs—or $36 million less than the Colts. Is it any wonder the Bears lost to the Colts in the Super Bowl? Indianapolis led the league in spending as well as passer rating.

I thought he explained it well, i.e. family owned team with limited resources.

He's right. We as fan are blind to the fact that this is a buisness. This is how they make a living. Not every owner is in this to win a SuperBowl. What? you say, not in it to win a SuperBowl, Blasphamy!!! NFL football is revenue sharing, you are going to make millions regardless if you win or lose. Why would the owners of the Texans pay $500 million dollars for the rights to own a team in the NFL? $500 million? Because they knew with their share of the BILLIONS of dollars a year the NFL generates they would be fine.

If someone told me i could start my own search engine on the internet and Google and Yahoo would be revenue sharing partners with me at the end of the year, yea i would invest in starting a search engine. And at the end of the year the best search engine got a trophy and still split their profits with me, i would not be overly concerned with competeing dollar for dollar for the trophy!

I would guess there are 8 or so teams that have a set Gross profit mark that they demand every year, they will not over spend from a marketing or coaching or facility improvement standpoint if it means cutting into that profit margin. There is not 32 Danny Snyders running the NFL.

 

[Statcruncher]

From Dan Pompei's (Chicago Tribune) recent column about the NFL Salary Cap:

how can this happen?

In 2006, the Bears spent $97 million on player costs—or $36 million less than the Colts. Is it any wonder the Bears lost to the Colts in the Super Bowl? Indianapolis led the league in spending as well as passer rating.

I thought he explained it well, i.e. family owned team with limited resources a loyal fanbase that will continually support losers.

Fixed.It's no secret that Chicago pro sports teams are notoriously cheap. Unfortunately they know that the hardcore Chicago fan base is stupid enough to continue to support a team even though it is a joke. Why drop 130 million and have a great chance to win the Super Bowl when you can drop 97 million and get lucky once every couple of decades while increasing your profits? The Bulls, Bears, and Blackhawks are woefully cheap and run it like a revenue stream instead of a point of pride.

Having relocated to Dallas it's even easier to see the extreme ends of the spectrum. While Jerry Jones is a money-grubbing jerk who loves to milk money from the public, he's 100% committed to winning. He goes after "problematic" personnel (Tank and TO) and has no problems dropping cash (sometimes more than needed) to get/keep a guy who gives him a better chance to win. At least with Jerry you know you will pay through the nose but will see a great team on the field.

On the other hand Tom Hicks who owns the Rangers and Stars comes from the Chicago mentality. To him it's all about the bottom line. He would rather spend 50 million, make 100 million and finish in last place rather than spend 90 million, make 125 million, and contend for the Cup. From interviews it's painfully obvious he's a businessman, not a fan.

I honestly don't understand how someone can use a professional sports team strictly as a revenue stream without seriously trying to reward the fans with a quality product. The McCaskeys can kiss my ###. I may never see Chicago in a Super Bowl again but at least my kids should outlive their sorry asses.

 

[GregR_2]

From Dan Pompei's (Chicago Tribune) recent column about the NFL Salary Cap:how can this happen? In 2006, the Bears spent $97 million on player costs—or $36 million less than the Colts. Is it any wonder the Bears lost to the Colts in the Super Bowl? Indianapolis led the league in spending as well as passer rating.

I interpreted your post to be asking "How could the Colts have spent 97+36= $133m in player costs when the salary cap that year was much less than that?" From the rest of the thread no one else seems to have read it that way, so maybe I'm off and wasting my time... but in case that is what you were asking, here's what's up.The "salary cap" and "player costs" are not the same thing. Player costs is the actual money that is paid in this fiscal year to players. Salary cap is an accounting figure for this year, where some money may be deferred to future years. While all of the player costs will show up in a salary cap for a year at some point in time, they don't necessarily hit it the year that the money was actually paid to the player.Signing bonuses are the most obvious example. Their total amount is split up over the number of seasons of the contract, and that amount is added into each year's salary cap over the life of the contract. So when Peyton Manning signed his new contract with a $34.5m signing bonus, in that year he received the $34.5m in bonus and 500k salary. His player cost was $35m. But only 1/7 of the signing bonus applied to the salary cap that year. So while his player cost was $35m, his salary cap hit was only about $5.4m for the bonus and salary.So if the Colt spent $133m in player costs, some of that money is in the form of signing bonuses where the cash will not count towards the cap until a future year. Now in some cases teams may be mortgaging their future and reach a point where they spent so much of their future salary cap room on players they used now, that they have to let high priced, good players go. The Ravens did this in their Super Bowl run.The other way this happens is that teams take into account that the salary cap goes up every year. So though a team couldn't fit all the money they spent this year under this year's cap, that's ok because it doesn't hit until a fiture year and they know it will go up by then so there will be room for the deferred amounts then. That is a model that Washington is living under. It is sort of like if you use an interest free credit card to buy now something that you can't afford, but that you know you can afford next year when the bill comes due because you will have gotten a raise.As long as the NFL's revenues keep growing, the cap will keep going up.

 

[Despyzer]

It's no secret that Chicago pro sports teams are notoriously cheap. Unfortunately they know that the hardcore Chicago fan base is stupid enough to continue to support a team even though it is a joke. Why drop 130 million and have a great chance to win the Super Bowl when you can drop 97 million and get lucky once every couple of decades while increasing your profits? The Bulls, Bears, and Blackhawks are woefully cheap and run it like a revenue stream instead of a point of pride.

Those franchises are jokes?

 

[The Great Snook]

Any discussion about "cheap" teams that doesn't include the Boston Bruins is deficient.