MadBuffaloDisease

"These go to 11."

Frankly I think the crowd was too stupid to GET the jokes Stewart was making at their expense. It was like "I didn't understand it, but I think it's supposed to be funny, so I'll chuckle a bit."

I think we're in agreement mostly here. I just believe that Upshaw agreeing to 56.2%, or ven 58%, would help get a deal done immediately, whereas right now, it's not looking good. And if the owners don't agree, no new CBA, no additional money for the players, and possibly a work stoppage in 2008.

The "cash over cap" will also help Snyder save himself FROM himself. But as I've said elsewhere, the NFLPA has to accept at most 58% of DGR's. And can anyone tell me WHY stadium naming rights should be considered DGR? I can see the other stuff, to a degree, but naming rights?

I have a hard time believing that the NFLPA's angle WRT pushing revenue sharing is based on this, and more on the fact that IF they can get owners to share more revenue, they can continue to demand 60% of DGR. But that's me.

I never said that Upshaw didn't know what he was doing, because I believe he knows EXACTLY what he's doing. My point is that by demanding that players get close to 60% of revenues, he's putting a strain on the owners and creating a situation where there's animosity and a good chance that NOTHING gets done, versus simply taking less money, which is STILL a lot more than they were previously getting. Frankly if I were the smaller-market owners, I'd tell Upshaw and the NFLPA that it's 56% or nothing, and that means pensions go bye-bye, no cap in 2007 with the prohibitive rules that apply, and likely a work stoppage in 2008.

If the players accept 56% of total revenues instead of 60%, or even 59.5%, then revenue sharing becomes less of an issue for owners. Basically players are saying "we know that most teams can't afford to pay us, so let the big markets help out the smaller markets so that we CAN get paid a LOT more than we're already getting compared to before."

Why not give them 65%? Hell they're the only ones who are doing anything in the NFL, right?

Wow! http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AsMy...ov=ap&type=lgns

Well it's really more of a moving target for the owners. Players have a finite career length and taking less (and potentially a LOT less if there's a lockout or work stoppage in 2008) isn't smart when you're squabbling over what amounts to maybe $1M more per marquee player, which makes up a small percentage of the TOTAL number of players. Take a look at the NHL for an example of how it's going to hurt the players more than the owners.

That I don't know. I was just saying that if Buffalo had a chance to host a SB that was contingent on a (retractable or not) domed stadium, they should do it.

If a SB meant the Bills needed/got a new stadium that had a dome (or a retractable dome, preferrably), I wouldn't care if it's "Buffalo Football" or not. These are harsh economic times where sentimentality has little place.

No, Ramius is right. The salary cap in 2006 without a new CBA is $94.5M (64.6% of DGR). With a new CBA at even the compromise number of 58% (of TOTAL revenue), it's $104M. So Upshaw is deceiving people when he's saying the NFL is asking them NFLPA to take a lower number, because the only lower number is the percentage, but it represents a higher amount of money for the players.

Yep, no need to rush and cut him, and save a whopping $800K!

Fo sho! That last week of their season couldn't have possibly gone worse. Here they were set to give Brees a huge new deal or franchise him again, and then trade unknown Rivers for a 1st rounder, but Brees ends up hurting himself badly, Rivers looks like shiite and untradeable, and Brees' injury potentially is so bad that the Chargers are forced to let him go and go with wholly unproved Rivers. And they were SO close.

You mean nobody HAS yet?

But not to get a deal done. Just to give teams extra time to decide what players to cut.

Well it certainly was a nice little diversion for the NFL from the talk about the tainted SB win.

I've heard rumblings that the Chargers aren't convinced Rivers will be an NFL starter, and his end-of-season performance did little to allay those fears. Whether that's true or not, he's got almost NO playing experience, and the team was close to a playoff team this past year. And the Chargers gave Brees a "franchise" tender last year, but not this year. Hmmmm.

Good. No CBA until later in the Spring.

And Brees isn't healthy yet. It also says something when the Chargers are willing to let him walk. They know him best.

Oops. Messed up on the Bengals game. But they had a lousy defense, which was more the point. And in the Denver game, it WAS a garbage-time TD, since the Broncos went to prevent.

Pretty much. That great "uncapped year" in 2007 won't look so great when all those players realize they're not free, but restricted FA's, and when the unrestricted ones can't make more than 30% of their salary in 2006. Maybe the NFL owners should tell the players that there will be a lockout in 2008 if they don't accept their terms, and that 2007 will be a lesson to them. There's no minimum that needs to be spent that year, unlike all the other years where 54% of DGR's had to be spend.

I'm actually happy this didn't get done right now. The Bills are in good shape to improve themselves this off-season as it stands, and if every team had $10M+ in cap room, it would only hurt the Bills. And a deal will get done eventually, WITH a cap. And 2007 won't be so bad. Players will need 6 years to be UFA's, there's the 30% salary increase rule, and there's no minimum teams need to spend, so if need be, I'd be willing to let Ralph sign no one, pocket some change, and reload for the future.

Surprised about the Giants, Jets, and Falcons.