ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

The current 2011 CBA is publicly available, and runs a little over 300 pages (including attachments). It contains the salary cap rules because those rules were agreed upon by the owners and the NFLPA as part of the collective bargaining process. Here's a link to the current CBA: http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/2011CBA.pdf About the only thing I can remember being less clearly written than the salary cap rules is the federal tax code. So let me say right up front that I could be wrong about this. But I think I found a section of the CBA that allows teams to carry over unused salary cap room from one season to the next if they choose to do so. So if that's true, how come we've never read about it in the press or heard the talking heads on ESPN mention it? That's a fair and good question that I could only speculate about. But nonetheless, I'll show you what the relevant parts of the 2011 CBA actually say about the matter - - you can form your own conclusions about whether I've interpreted them correctly. Like many legal documents, the 2011 CBA starts by defining some of the terms it uses. Here are a few you need to know: From the Article 1 definitions at pages 1-4 of the CBA: So now you have skip ahead to Article 13, entitled "Salary Cap Accounting Rules," which starts at page 90 of the CBA. Article 13 contains 8 subsections and runs on for about 20 pages. But buried in subsection 6 (entitled "Valuation of Player Contracts"), you find this little gem at page 96: That sure sounds to me like any team that is under the salary cap for the current 2011 League Year can simply give written notice to the NFL that it wants to add any unused 2011 Salary Cap to its maximum allowable Salary Cap for 2012. I keep reading that the Bills are considerably under the 2011 Salary Cap. If the Bills continue to follow an internal policy of counting signing bonuses in full in the year actually paid, they will ALWAYS have unused salary cap room every single year. My question - - Will Ralph Wilson bother to send a written notice to the NFL next month asking to have the Bills unused cap room "carried over," or will he squander the opportunity to gain that competitive advantage? If you want to win the Super Bowl, why wouldn't you simply always tell the NFL that you wanted to "carry over" unused cap room rather than losing it? If I've interpreted the CBA correctly, somebody in the media ought to ask Wilson/Littmann/Nix/Overdorf if they plan to "carry over" this year's unused salary cap room, and if not, why not. Has anybody even heard of this "carry over" provision before?

It makes you neither a genius nor an idiot, but unless there have been amendments to the 2006 version of the NFL Constitution & Bylaws (or future amendments), it's not possible. Here's what the 2006 version of that document says about membership in the League: http://static.nfl.com/static/content//public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf [at page 5/292]

Because I choose to post here androgenously, I have no way to prove it to you, but I am not Crayonz.

What makes you think it's sarcasm? I get that "circling the wagons" was a real life pioneer thing, but that doesn't mean it's not derogatory. Just like "cougars" were real wild animals that people had to avoid in pioneer days, "circling the wagons" was a perfectly acceptable phrase back then. But today, "circling the wagons" (just like "cougars") has a not-so-nice slang meaning. If people in Utah can take a stand for decency and not being associated with a losing stereotype, why can't the Bills?

I used to enjoy hearing ESPN's Chris Berman say "Nobody circles the wagons like the Buffalo Bills!" - - but after more than a decade of no playoffs I've changed my mind about it. I'm tired of being reminded that the Bills must overcome stupid mistakes, both on the field and in the front office. By constantly repeating the "nobody circles the wagons" phrase, Berman simply reinforces the stereotype that the Bills can be counted on to make boneheaded decisions and plays that they must struggle to overcome. As a result, top tier coaches and players believe that the Bills will always need to not only beat their opponents, but the Bills own miscues. When given a choice, those players and coaches then take their services elsewhere. Enough! We need to make ESPN and Berman use a more positive catch phrase for the Bills. Besides, changing the "circling the wagons" catch phrase is just the right thing to do. As I learned here on Two Bills Drive, "circling the wagons" is a slang term for extremely brutal and immoral inmate behavior in prisons: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=circle%20the%20wagons I have to admit, I just don't get it. How can the Bills promote a "make Mom proud" campaign for fan behavior in the Ralph, yet tactilely (by their silence) allow Berman's use of the phrase "Nobody circles the wagons like the Buffalo Bills?" Ralph and the front office should be inspired by a recent news story from Utah. When required to make a decision about the use of a mascot with a much less offensive slang meaning, the Draper, UT school board took the high road. They refused to rubber stamp the students' choice of "cougars" as the mascot and name for the school's athletic teams. They believed that middle-aged women might be offended by the choice of name, and did not want to associate the school with the stereotype of unmarried women in their forties (i.e., losers): http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/school-t-cougars-because-middle-aged-women-might-161402778.html The Bills should be as courageous as the folks in Utah and respectfully demand that Berman use a new catch-phrase for the Bills that creates a positive image and has no immoral slang meaning. I've had enough of ESPN and Berman reinforcing the culture of losing at One Bills Drive. If Berman's contract with ESPN requires him to use the "nobody circles the wagons" phrase, then let him use it for the Patriots, and stereotype them as the team that always makes bone-headed mistakes.

Closer to history than we think? - - - I suppose it depends on how long Ralph lives. I'm not wishing him ill, but if Ralph passes before the stadium lease gets extended, there's a chance we could be history pretty quick!

Personally, I never thought Patterson had the vision to do it.

Thought this article about the "Sports Fan Coalition" (one of the 5 groups petitioning the FCC) was kind of interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/sports/23lobby.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1326823327-C9NnTS6mVPIurDOhJUO9vw&pagewanted=1 A short excerpt: There's quite a bit more about the Sports Fan Coalition in the link.

The FCC Notice says that 5 different groups jointly petitioned the FCC to abolish an existing FCC regulation. So if the petition is ultimately successful, private companies like the NFL, on the one hand, and cable companies/satellite broadcasters, on the other, will be MORE free to contract with each other in any way they want. One of the five groups that jointly filed the petition to abolish an existing FCC regulation is the "Media Access Project," which calls itself a "non-profit law firm and advocacy organization." Here's part of what the Media Access Project's website says about the petition: http://www.mediaaccess.org/2011/11/groups-petition-fcc-to-lift-sports-blackout-rule/ So even if the current petition is successful, and the FCC abolishes its existing rule, the NFL will remain free to seek contractual blackout restrictions in all of its deals that grant any right to broadcast NFL games. Given how much negotiating power the NFL has in such deals (as evidenced by the ever-increasing rights fees), I don't expect blackouts to end any time soon.

From the FCC "Public Notice" at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0112/DA-12-44A1.pdf As best I can tell, you can type in "MB Docket No. 12-3" in the blank entitled "Proceeding Number" here: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=g4mny and then fill out and electronically submit the rest of the form, including your comments on the blackout rule. I was tempted to submit a form that simply read "Bengals suck!" - - but I chickened out.

I don't necessarily take Congressional statements at face value, but U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (Dem. - Ohio) claims that he is responsible for the impending FCC review of the NFL blackout policy: http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2012/01/12/fcc-to-reconsider-blackout-rule-for.html

I don't want to freak you out or scare you away from flying, but some people already have one: http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/164501/study_us_air_traffic_control_vulnerable_to_cyberattack.html

I realize that you have already backed away from at least part of the above post, but just to add a little perspective (admittedly from a different era, but involving a late career trade of a Bills RB for draft picks): http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/10/19/gameday-the-risk-of-carson-palmer/ OJ played only two years after the trade. Madden existed, but only as a person, not a video game yet. It was closer to (and maybe even a little before) the "Centipede" and "Missile Command" era.

My guess is that most people who post here don't "get lucky" very often - - but if you rescued a dog from a shelter I guess you've got karma on your side. Give Cheddar a pat for me.

Couple things: 1. As I read the article, the proposed FCC action would affect only cable and satellite operators, and would not change anything concerning blackout restrictions on individual TV station broadcasts, which are apparently written into the NFL contracts with the TV networks. If the FCC abolishes its own restrictions, can the NFL somehow still rely on (or impose in the future) contractual restrictions that effectively maintain the current blackout policy? Unclear to me, but it seems possible. 2. For any policy wonks or NFL history buffs out there, this link to a 1982 federal appellate court case involving broadcast of Dolphin games details how NFL TV policy evolved into the current contractually imposed blackouts: http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/678/678.F2d.142.81-5857.html

A little off-topic, but where'd you get the weird cat? And do you name all your pets for various types of cheese? Packer fans try to sneak on this bored all the time, just cause there team was world champion last year - - how do we know you aren't really a Packer fan?

Most people don't know that Ronnie Harmon and Lonnie Johnson are now working as paramedics in Mexico, where healthcare is considerably cheaper than in the US. There is no truth, however, to the rumor that Ralph sent Easley to see a heart surgeon in Mexico City.

http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dish/201201/nfl-owner-claims-real-fans-are-season-ticket-holders So how did Jim Woodcock avoid becoming an OL for the Bills?

http://www.lawjournalbuffalo.com/news/article/current/2012/01/09/103672/tobes-plate-fills-up-fast-in-return-to-public-sector There's a little more about Richard Tobe in the full article, but the above excerpt seems to be the key part concerning the stadium lease negotiations. It's been previously reported that the County plans to seek bids from outside law firms to represent the County, but whatever law firm Erie County hires might wind up taking their directions from Tobe. For a few more details about Tobe, see: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/richard-tobe/a/447/956

Hey SJBF - - I started to take a look at this last month but it's fairly long and I got sidetracked. If you're still interested, post a reply and I should be able to find time to finish looking it over in the next few days (now that the Bills' season is over) - - but I don't want to spend the time if you've moved on from this.

I nominate Michael Fuller from Lexington, N.C. - - we need to change the team culture, and he does not suffer from thinking small: http://www.wbtv.com/story/16423651/cops-man-tried-to-use-1000000-bill-at-walmart But he may not be available right away (depends on how he tries to post bond).

Vuja de

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Tom-Brady-gets-8216-roughed-8217-if-by-82?urn=nfl-wp14981

Hey Hopeful. Interesting stats. My only comment is with respect to the Green Bay comparison. While I do not follow Green Bay closely, my impression is that they have had some blow out wins this year, in which they were pretty far ahead in the 4Q. If they follow the typical pattern (don't really know because I don't watch them often), it seems likely that they would be running the ball more in the 4Q when they were trying to use clock. OTOH, the Bills have trailed by a significant margin even in some of the games they came back to win. As a result, the Bills haven't been in a position as often as Green Bay to try to use clock to protect a lead. Do you think that might explain part of what the game-long stats show? I wonder if there's a way to break out the clock usage effect - - maybe stats for just the first quarter when clock usage isn't a factor and most games would not involve a team going pass-heavy to catch up or run-heavy to use up the clock? Like you, I would also like to see Chan stick with the run a little longer even if slightly behind, but I think the comparison with Green Bay might be slightly skewed for the reasons stated above. What do you think?

http://www.isitlowt.com/ But keep in mind that Abbott Labs created the above website because they want to sell you something and make a profit.