ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

Well, he would have to line up on her side of the formation - - that ain't automatic.

Now that you mention it, I vaguely recall reading somewhere that there is a limit to how many years a signing bonus can be spread over - - but I don't have a link. My hazy recollection is that the limit was 5 years total. Whether the pro-ration limit is either 4 or 5 years, that would increase Fitz's 2011 cap figure above the $4.229M figure, but not by a huge amount. It would still leave the Bills with over $17M of unused 2011 cap room, if my math is right. BTW, the rotoworld info includes a $10M signing bonus, and a total of $11M in roster and/or "option" bonuses. Seems like players (and their agents) would always want at least some of the money in the form of an upfront signing bonus.

The new Fitz contract would reduce the Bills' available 2011 cap room, but here's how rotoworld says the new contract was structured - - from http://www.rotoworld.com/teams/contracts/nfl/buf/buffalo-bills I don't know how accurate rotoworld is, but using their info, the new Fitz contract would result in a charge against the 2011 Bills salary cap of about $4.229 million (his full $2.8M 2011 salary plus 1/7th of the $10M signing bonus). For simplicity, let's ignore the facts that (i) the reported October 3rd cap room figure must have already included some base salary figure for Fitz (which would make the net increase in Fitz's 2011 cap figure caused by the new contract less than $4.229M), and (ii) the remaining pro-rated portion of whatever signing bonus Fitz received under his old contract still has to be applied against the Bills salary cap - - it doesn't just disappear - - but I'm not sure if it all counts in 2011 or if it gets spread out over the full 7 year term of the new contract (either way, the remaining pro-rated portion of the signing bonus from Fitz's old contract would increase Fitz's 2011 cap figure above $4.229M). With the above assumptions for simplicity, the new Fitz contract reduces the Bills 2011 salary cap room by only $4.229 million. The team would still have roughly $22.7M - $4.229M = $18.471M in unused 2011 cap room (before the effect of any other player transactions that took place after 10/3/11).

As of about 10 days ago, Rian Lindell's agent Paul Sheehy estimated that the 2012 cap "should fall in the area of $142.2 million." He never says how he arrived at that figure, but he presumably has at least some basis for making that estimate. That quote is from the following link, which is technically a blog entry, but written by the agent (it also contains some insights about what agents do this time of year): http://www.bleed-green.com/blog/?p=12513

It's always true that all 32 NFL teams are under the cap - - NFL rules require it. The question is by how much. I wasn't able to quickly craft a google search that zeroed in on end-of-season 2011 salary cap figures. But here's what I did find with less than exhaustive effort: 1. As of around August 16, 2011 the Bills had the 5th most cap room ($26.2 million) for the 2011 league year of any team: http://blogs.nfl.com/2011/08/16/updated-cap-space-for-all-32-teams/?module=HP11_content_stream 2. As of around August 29, 2011 the Bills had the 6th most cap room ($24.4 million) for the 2011 league year of any team: http://blogs.nfl.com/2011/08/29/updated-salary-cap-space-numbers-for-all-32-teams/ 3. As of Monday, October 3, 2011 the Bills still had the 5th most cap room ($22.7 million) for the 2011 league year of any team: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/10/04/updated-cap-numbers-as-of-monday/ Now I realize that the $22.7M cap room number was early in the season, and would probably decrease as a result of in-season player transactions. Link # 3 above just happened to be the most recent article about league-wide 2011 salary cap room that I could easily find. Note that the 8/29/11 league-wide figure for cap room was just over $362M, while the first link in Beerball's post # 10 above says that the league-wide cap room figure still exceeded $300M when the 2011 books "closed." That says nothing about the Bills' exact situation, but might be an indication that most teams' available 2011 cap room did not dramatically change after October 3rd. But even if the Bills' available cap room was somehow less than the league median when the books "closed" for 2011, failing to make the "carry over" election would put us at a competitive disadvantage for the 2012 season if other teams took advantage of the opportunity, no?

Although the 2011 CBA does have a provision that allows teams to elect to carry over unused salary cap room from 2011 to 2012, I don't recall seeing anything saying that the Bills plan to actually do that. It's certainly possible that the Bills said something like that and I just missed it. Do you have a link?

Does possession change at the exact moment when the punted ball crosses the LOS, or only (assuming nobody on the receiving team catches it to establish possession by the receiving team), when the referee blows his whistle to end the play because (1) the ball rolled dead, (2) the ball went out of bounds, or (3) a player on the kicking team downed it? Maybe when the punted ball crosses the LOS, the receiving team merely has an irrevocable opportunity to possess, which they remain free to screw up by muffing the punt at any time before the whistle blows?

Yes. Team B had an "opportunity to possess." Same result if Team A opens the OT by trying an onsides kick, recovers it, and then kicks a field goal. The only time a field goal doesn't immediately beat you in OT is if you never had a possession OR an opportunity to possess.

Sullivan would whisper in Ralph's ear (so the devil couldn't hear it): "It's a shame that neither of us lived to see it!"

Team B wins, because Team A never got a second possession (so Team B's possession never ended - - the muffed punt is merely an unsuccessful "opportunity to possess" for Team A). The Team B punter is MVP for the 90 yard punt, and goes to Disneyland. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81d817d7/article/postseason-overtime-rules

I don't follow the Cowboys much, so I can't comment intelligently about whether it puts Garrett on the hot seat or not. But I'm surprised by what Fox said about Tebow - - he could have been a lot more circumvent in his comments. I wonder what the Broncos locker room thought of it?

Why would I google "satire" if I'm looking for articles that mention Chan Gailey?

What are you talking about? If you do a google search on "Chan Gailey," this article is one of the "hits."

Chan Gailey is quoted in the article below. His comments are short but insightful: League-wide coaches poll My apologies if this was previously posted.

I guess you don't speak Italian - - it's imported from Italy (I've heard that Father Guido Sarducci drinks it). Humor's a subjective thing, so it isn't everybody's cup of cappuccino, but for those who like crayonz's brand of humor, I highly recommend a series of books containing letters from "Lazlo Toth" to politicians and corporations and their responses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Novello I suppose some people will think the Lazlo Toth letters and responses are neither clever nor ironic, but they frequently left me in stitches. Note to crayonz - - if you've never read the Lazlo Toth stuff check it out. I'm sure you would appreciate it (assuming you've never been "Special Vatican Reporter").

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.