Casey D

You're most welcome...CD

I don't give much credence to the arguments of the big market teams. They basically want a baseball model, where they can buy a title. It's the only way a guy like Danny Snyder can do it, given his horrendous track record even on the mildly biased--in his favor--system now in place. When the Steelers become like the Pirates, you'll know the NFL has killed the golden goose.. Hopefully the owners will heed the motto "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered."...CD

Let's go through at a basic level the economics of an NFL franchise, and then you can answer your own question. We'll use two teams as examples, with numbers that are not actual, but a good guesstimate. There are two basic sources of revenue for all NFL teams--shared and unshared. Shared revenue includes 1/32 of the TV money, and formulaic sharing of ticket sales. Unshared income includes private suites, charging for training camp, private seat licenses(PSLs), merchandise, and stadium deals. Each team also has costs. Salaries are the biggest. Right now the cap is around 64% of TOTAL League revenue under the new CB(which has not yet been ratified by the owners, by the way). Under the last CBA, the cap was linked to total shared revenues only, and this change adversely effects the Bills, let me illustrate in a moment. Teams have other costs as well, such as debt service on the purchase of the team and stadiums. These costs do not adversely effect the Bills--as Ralph owns the team free and clear and did not build the stadium--but it does effect teams like NE, Philly, etc who have new stadiums. Let's use Buffalo and Washington as examples. Let's say the Bills get $110 M in shared revenue. Let's say they make $35M in unshared revenue. That's $145 M they can spend on EVERYTHING and stay in the black. Say Washington also gets the same $110 M in shared, but earns $125 M in unshared. It has $225 M to spend and stay in the black. Let's also assume that the average team has total revenues of $175 M, so the salary cap is set at 64% of $175 m, or roughly $111 M. In this example, the amount that the Bills can spend under the cap is actually 76% of its total revenues, while Washington only has to spend 49%. In $$$ terms, after spending to the cap, the Bills are left with just $34 M to pay for everything else--all overhead, coaches, debt service(none right now), out of pocket bonus money,etc. Washington has $114 M. If the Bills do not "spend to the cap" as you suggest, it does not create more revenue, it simply let's them keep money for other things. For example if they only spent $100 M on salaries, they would have $45 M left for other things--still far less than Washington. What Ralph wants is more of the unshared revenue to be shared, to fix this imbalance. While this might seem like asking for a handout--and it is a bit-- actually it is fair because now that the cap is a % of all revenues(as opposed to only shared revenues under the old CBA), the unshared revenues from teams like Wash, Philly and NY(especially when they have a new stadium) drives up the cap, and creates revenues for the big teams to pay the increase, but adds nothing to Buffalo's revenue stream. In other word, the big teams drive up the Bills costs with their unshared revenue schemes, but provide no new income to Buffalo to pay for it. Now the big teams argue that they have a lot more costs--mostly debt service for their stadiums and/or paying the debt on purchasing the franchise)-to make the extra revenue, and its not fair for them to give money to Buffalo who, while having low revenue, have lower costs. But that's why Ralph gets all worked up about a new NY stadium, it just is going to make worse the problem the Bills and other small teams already have. Now the Bills will be OK until Ralph dies, but then we will be screwed unless new revenue sharing has been put into place. The reason is the new Bills owners will have to pay say $700 M for the team. They will have to borrow money to finance some of this-- let's say half or $350 M. If they have to pay 10 % interest on this annually--that's $35 M more each year in costs for the new owner that Ralph does not have. That makes the Bills a non-viable operation in Buffalo, without revenue sharing. So that's what all this is about. I believe that ultimately there will be more revenue sharing that will keep our Bills safe. But until we get it, Ralphie will B word. And it's not because he is whiny, it's because of the economics I just laid out. Sorry this is long, but it's a little complicated... Happy New Year... CD

Of course that is true--but if they remember how bad they felt on Sunday night, it will be a learning tool for 2007, i.e., finish the game when you can.

Notwithstanding his misstep in the end zone--and who among us has never screwed up--I really like this guy. Listening to him talk, he's smart, and seems like a quality guy. Fairchild started working him into the offense late in the season, and he has responded. At 27/28, I look for big things from him next year. I really think the Bills need to spend all their off-season addressing the lines, with some lesser re-examination and tweaking at LB and WR. I leave it up to Marv and Co. about how critical Clements is at the price he will cost. I think the rest of the team is solid, especially with a year with Jauron and company under their belt.

Me2. Since it didn't cost us a playoff spot, it let's you focus on all the good stuff that has happened over the past year, and think hopefully about 2007,

It's funny after how painful the loss on Sunday, it turns out it really did not matter from a playoff perspective. The Jets win last night would have effectively ended the Bills playoff chances even if they won against Tennessee, because it would have taken(at least) a Bills win against Baltimore, a DEN loss at home to SF, and a KC win over Jax, just to get the Bills into a position to get a tiebreaker. So to paraphrase Bill Murray in Meatballs, "it just didn't matter."

As painful as it is today, when we reflect on this season we'll remember how far we came since last January, when the Bills were a national laughingstock.

Me 2! And on turnovers, it's the only way for our D to survive against anyone, given how soft we are against the run. But the way the Ravens handled the Steelers yesterday, I would have given the Bills no better than about a 20% chance of doing that with the Ravens really wanting the game--per today's Baltimore Sun.

We should all keep in my that even with a win yesterday, and a Jets loss tonight, the Bills still had a hugely difficult game next week. The Ravens need a win against the Bills to ensure a bye. As much as I wished the Bills had won and kept their chances alive yesterday, we have to remember that it would have remained a longshot chance nonetheless.

I don't think your mind is small, just a tad confused.

excellent!

is it working?

Excuse me, but that's lame. No one will ever admit to that. You've backpeddled far enough on this, let's just for get it and have a happy holidays...CD

That's fine. RU in on the SF side too?

OK, fair enough. Do we have a bet?

You wrote "any amount? how much do you have?" Now you say you bet only $1? Don't bait people with rhetoric when you don't mean it. Since you prefer to bet for small stakes, we'll go for bragging rights. The bet is that SF is the OC for the Bills next year, unless he gets an equivalent or better position elsewhere, or he expires or something. But if he is fired or otherwise pressured to leave, u win. Merry Christmas...CD

I want in on this bet too. No way Fairchild leaves unless it is a promotion or he dies or something. I'll even give you odds. I'll put up $1,000 to your $500 that Fairchild is not fired. I'll go more if you like at 2-1--we just need a neutral stakeholder and an escrow account...CD

If you compare yourself to a future hall of fame coach, you usually will come up short. In the big scheme of things, the current group is light years ahead of the previous regime. The game today could have gone either way, we just came up short. It is not the result of collosal bungling, it was a series of things that if done better could have gone the other way. As much as it hurts, sometimes you lose a close one when you have two even teams..CD

Given how bad this team was last year, it is hard to fix everything. Losing McCargo did not help. The guys running this team are not stupid, but they can't do everything all at once...CD

There was, it was the 25, both Jauron and Lindell said so after the game. They flirted with trying from the 28. Running on third could have been an option, but anything that would have gotten a first down was sensible. No obvious call, it seems to me...CD

This was a great game today against two hot teams. We just came up short. It would have been nice to keep the playoff dream alive one more week, but this is not a contending team, YET. But we've come a long way in a year. The playoffs are wholly realistic next year, with more progress in the off season...CD

You are incorrect. The team that loses the toss gets the option to start the second half to receive the ball or pick direction. Titans elected to receive, Bills choose the wind...CD

The Bills were trailing 20-19 at halftime, and had to kickoff to start the half. The right call was to kick with the wind, and use the wind to get the lead. They did that, and led by 9 going into the 4th. We did not hold on--you can't have everything...CD

You sir, appropriately could be called an a-hole of bibilical proportions. But it is Christmas, so Merry Christmas and may the Lord be with you..CD