Comments on: Cap carryover makes late-season extensions irrelevant

By: lilrob10201

lilrob10201 — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:10:48 +0000

I did not get one thing that article said.

By: thehuckster404

thehuckster404 — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:09:32 +0000

Teams that consistently compile 7 wins and under should spend that cap space they are hoarding, or risk a public backlash. Fans tolerate a loser, but a loser that has 30 million unspent in the bank is what causes half empty stadiums.

By: ccjcsr

ccjcsr — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 12:44:43 +0000

Neutralizing, to an extent, the don’t-pay-it-forward mentality is the arrival in 2013 of a per-team spending minimum. Starting next year, each franchise must actually spend at least 89 percent of the unadjusted cap, on a rolling three-year average

——————————————————-

Where was this last year when teams had 40-60 under the cap to spend?

By: lawyermalloy

lawyermalloy — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 12:14:13 +0000

Just another example of the UNION not fully understanding the economics utilized by NFL teams. The union looks at the “bottom line” and reports back to its membership how salaries have increased under the new CBA instead of calculating what the ramifications will be in a “cap” calculation and the rules that accompany them.
While the upper echelon of the players(roughly 15%) certainly benefit from the new CBA, the NFLPA really doesn’t adequately care for the majority of their membership in their decision making process.

By: cynicalvision

cynicalvision — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:55:43 +0000

This is the nerdy stuff I find most worthwhile on your site, too bad I have to sift through endless hyperbole to find it these days.