Major League Sports: October 2004 Archives

Salary cap. Some love it, some hate it. Some people blame it for the destruction of their favorite teams, some herald it as the primary cause of the parity that makes each year so exciting.

Love it or hate it, like it or lump it, do you really know anything about it? For instance, did you know it's scheduled to go away in 2007? Can you imagine an NFL without a salary cap? Just for a year? Let me tell you how bad an idea that is. It's so bad, the Executive Director of the NFL Player's Association (NFLPA), Gene Upshaw, went to the NFL execs, and told them the NFLPA wants the CBA extended specifically to avoid a cap-free year. Why? Because, as he says, "[I]f we actually get to that uncapped year, it's over. We'll never get the cap back once it goes away."

Let's take a moment to think about that, shall we? The guy in charge of making sure the players make as much money as possible doesn't want the salary cap to go away. Are Trevor Linden and Bob Goodenow (of the NHLPA) paying attention? Admittedly, Upshaw made his comments in the process of trying to wrangle more revenue sharing amongst the teams, which would of course, raise the cap amount, which would then give the players more money. Still, while the NHLPA is swearing up and down that a cap is the most evil thing for any sports player anywhere, and they'll never accept one in hockey, arguably the most visible player's union in North America is worried about losing theirs.

So, what is so important about the cap? How does it work? Let's take a brief look.

First, here is how the cap is calculated:

Projected Gross Revenues for the League x CBA Percentage = Players Share of the DGR

Players Share - Projected Benefits across the League = Available Funds for Player Salaries

Amount Funds for Player Salaries / Teams = Unadjusted Salary Cap per Team

The CBA Percentages per year, as agreed upon in the 2001 extension to the CBA are:

So, what does that mean? Basically, that the players get to share just under 2/3rds of the gross income of the NFL. The more money the NFL makes each year, the more the players get paid. As a side note, there is also a minimum percentage to be spent on payroll, which means there is a minimum amount of money the players can make each year.

So why is this thing so important? What does all this math do for the game? The gist of it is this: the NFLPA is smart enough to realize that helping the NFL increase its revenues is far better for them than scrapping over what percentage of the money they get. The NFL (and Paul Tagliabue in particular) is smart enough to make sure the players keep focused on making money for everyone, rather than looking to take cash out of the owner's pockets. The salary cap makes sure both sides keep focused on what matters.

It's win-win for everyone, right?

Many fans don't think so, especially around June 1st each year, when teams usually purge their rosters, and favorite players are let go in an effort to "get under the cap.” Some people also argue that the cap is only a technicality, easily worked around by judicious use of signing bonuses and back-loaded contracts, which aren't guaranteed.

It's debatable. What isn't is the idea of both players and owners working on ways to make the NFL product more profitable and enjoyable for the fans, rather than squabbling over who gets what percentage of a limited pie, has led to a strong, profitable league, with what looks to be a death-grip on the title of America's favorite game.

I'm pretty sure both sides are smart enough to get things done before 2007's cap-free year shows up, and football will continue to be a successful part of American culture. I know I'll be watching the games that year.

If they don't smarten up, so will Linden and Goodenow.

No I in Team? Maybe, but some guys can spell ME.

It''s a me-first world. Look out for yourself, cover your butt, and watch your back. It's all about taking care of me and mine, right? Right.

But is that how it should be on the football field? I think not. Baseball, now that's an individual's game. Pitcher vs. hitter, the duel of giants with each pitch. A guy like Curt Schilling can single-handedly win games for you. People say basketball's a team sport, but we've seen too many baby brawls between Shaq and Kobe. We know better. We've seen too many highlights of Lebron James tearing up the court while nine other guys stand around looking like pylons. We've seen too much attitude. We've seen MJ get the credit for the success of the Bulls, and Scottie walk off the court because someone else got the ball.

But football, it's not like that in football. Football's all about the team, right? Right.

Let's ask some NFL players, shall we? Let's see, as a completely random sample; let's just pull some arbitrarily chosen names out of a hat:

Ricky Williams, Keenan McCardell, Adewale Ogunleye, Chidi Ahanotu, and Jerry Rice. Good examples, right?

Ricky Williams: The guy who, after standing up and lecturing the team on how everyone had to give a little more, dig a little deeper, and be a leader in their own right during the off season, decided to retire the day before training camp so he could go smoke up.

Now that he's been hit with an 8 million-dollar fee for doing so, he wants back in. And oh, yeah, the NFL should waive the rules about drug suspensions for him because well does anyone really know why?

Keenan McCardell: He's been sitting on his butt for the last couple of months while his team stinks up the joint without a go-to receiver because he was stupid enough to have a pro-bowl year in 2003 without being in a contract year as well, and he's not enough of a team guy to play for less than he thinks he's worth.

He's finally been traded.

Adewale Ogunleye: Pulled the same stunt in Miami. Fortunately, the fish managed to trade him before things got too bad. Then again, they were still reeling from the Ricky thing, so who knows what they were thinking.

Chidi Ahanotu: Yet another Dolphins standout. He decided he wasn't happy with the lack of playing time (I guess getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to work out and occasionally play a few snaps wasn't good enough for him), and walked away from the team. He demanded a trade, or more playing time.

Since he was the fourth-string DE, the 'Fins did the smart thing and released him.

Jerry Rice: The best receiver to ever play the game told the coaches in Oakland that he's do whatever it took to help the team win in his last year as a player. The coaches said "thanks," and benched him. Jerry now says he's planning on at least another year after this one, especially since his untouchable record streak of consecutive games with a catch was finally broken. Since it was obvious that the best thing Jerry could do to help the Raiders win was get out of the way, he asked for a trade.

He's now in Seattle, where he can teach the receivers how to catch footballs, and segue nicely into a coaching career, should he desire to do so. Aside from his tantrum on the sideline in the game that broke his streak, Jerry handled things pretty well.

The recent history of the NFL has been laden with "Me First" stories. T.O. in San Fran, Randy Moss in Minnesota, and many others. It's disappointing. I know basketball is a sport full of individuals, but Football is supposed to be a team sport, isn't it? I know the age of the salary cap has made it harder for teams to remain loyal to players, and thus harder for players to remain loyal to the team. I know the shelf life of a pro athlete is short, and they've got to get what can to take care of themselves in the world after the career ends (a world they're often not prepared for). I know all these things, but I also know these guys are supposed to be heroes and role models.

I'll avoid the great soap-box speech about how many kids in society today don't think beyond their own (often short-term) wants and desires, and how the behavior they see in successful people influences their decisions. I'll avoid the discussion about whether Charles Barkley was right or wrong in saying he's not a role model. Instead, I'll say this: When my son grows up, I hope he's more like Curt Schilling, than any of the football players I've mentioned here.

And I really don't like baseball that much.

No one was better than Vick.

Really. Last week, no one was better than Mike Vick was. How's that you say? What am I smoking? Some of you are no doubt wondering if I'm talking about the same Mike Vick, quarterback of the Atlanta Falcons, who went 10/20, for 115 yards, no TD's and an INT? The Mike Vick who was sacked 5 times and fumbled twice? The Mike Vick whose QB rating was 46.9? THAT Mike Vick?

In a word, yes. Let me clarify. I'm talking Fantasy Football here. You see, in my league last week, Mike Vick scored negative one point. Yes. -1 pt. If I had left the starting QB position empty, I would have got no points, but I wouldn't have lost any either, which means literally, I would have done better to play no one in the QB slot than to start Vick.

So, this week's column is about that glorious and heart-wrenching experience that is Fantasy Football.

By Thursday night/Friday morning, it's a little late to be talking about whom you should play and whom you should bench. Aside from injury reports, you should have all the info you need for that by now. No, this week I'm asking a different question: Does the proliferation of Fantasy Football erode fan loyalty for teams?

I'm a die-hard Titans fan. One of my best friends lives and dies with Philly, and another with the Pats. I cannot cheer for any team that is playing against my boys. Yet I have Reggie Wayne on my fantasy team. Wayne plays for the Colts which has become recently Tennessee's biggest hurdle in the division and the conference. If he has a lot of big games, it follows that the Colts are probably having good games, which makes life tougher on my Titans.

Some folks say the age of the salary cap has already eroded team loyalty, because stars move from place to place too quickly, taking fan's affections with them. Some say that cap has helped team loyalty because fans consider the players too greedy and don't miss them. We'll call that a wash. I miss seeing Jevon Kearse in a Titans uniform, but I don't think of him too often. Neither Eddie George.

NFL.com just realized that Fantasy Football is a nine-figure moneymaker each year. The NFL has thrown its weight behind a massive marketing campaign to increase the number of people playing in fantasy leagues. The NFL as an organization governed primarily by the team owners wouldn't encourage something that's bad for the teams that make up the organization, would it?

Then again, which is better for the NFL? Is it people in 32 markets being die-hard loyal to their team, or is it people in every market tuning in to as many games as they can to check up on their fantasy studs? Do we really need to ask that question?

When it comes right down to it though, does a true-blue, loyal fan change their allegiance, just because they want to do well in a fantasy game? I think not. I think that what we wind up with is fans who are more educated about the game, know more about those who play it, and have a greater appreciation for the different systems and relationships that make the game work. We have a larger audience for small-market teams with star-caliber players who would have otherwise gone unnoticed (*cough* Steve McNair *cough*). We wind up with people watching games that might otherwise seem meaningless except for those playing in it (if even then). And we have something to keep us occupied Tuesday through Saturday.

Do some people feel conflicted each week, as their fantasy stars line up against their hometown heroes? I certainly hope so, I do. But then again, what's a football game without a little drama?

Next week: There's no I in "team," but there are an M and an E.