Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

HarassedOffTheSite

We're 5-3 with $38 Million in Dead Cap Space

51 posts in this topic

And for all intents and purposes should be 6-2. I don't think any of us (sane fans implied) thought we'd be here. And BTW the Manning led Broncos are 5-3 as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop this nonsense about 6-2. We lost fair and square. It's like saying that second TD today should have been intercepted etc.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$38 Million in Dead Cap Space

Polian consistently overpaid for mediocrity. I always felt you could have fielded a similar squad for cheap.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so much ignorance in one place.

talk about a face palm...where do i start.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so much ignorance in one place. talk about a face palm...where do i start.

At the beginning. -grin-

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for all intents and purposes should be 6-2. I don't think any of us (sane fans implied) thought we'd be here. And BTW the Manning led Broncos are 5-3 as well.

That is true but Manning's schedule is WAY tougher than Luck's

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the point of the OP. We are a bit handicapped this season because of the way we terminated some contracts. We're allocating nearly $40 million of our $120 million cap space to players that are no longer on the team.

But the idea of "dead cap space" is a bit of a misnomer, to be honest. Or, I guess I should say, the idea that we're the only team with dead cap space is off base. Every team has dead cap space. The way contracts affect team payrolls means that there is necessarily a "dead cap hit" for a great deal of players on every roster. Dwight Freeney is the best example of this on our roster: his cap hit includes a prorated $5 million bonus that was actually part of a $30 million bonus that was paid several seasons ago. That's a dead cap hit. (Some would say his $14 million base salary for 2012 is a dead cap hit as well, but that's another discussion entirely.)

On our current roster, we don't have very many players that have large prorated bonuses hitting our cap this season. The biggest reason why that's the case is because our five best/most productive players this season are either lower paid players or just signed/re-signed this offseason, or both. For instance, Wayne and Mathis (both in that top five) just signed contracts that will average $6 million/year and $9 million/year, respectively. Their bonuses and first year salary are $8.5 million and $17 million, respectively. But their cap hits for 2012 are $3.5 million and $5.75 million, lower than both the yearly average and the 2012 total cash outlay. Same thing for Luck, Redding, Satele, and the other players we drafted and/or signed this past offseason. We're getting more bang for our buck on a significant portion of our roster, especially among key players.

The only players that are actually on the roster and taking up significantly more cap space than cash space are Freeney (plus $5 million), Vinatieri (plus $1.2 million), and Bethea (plus $1 million). Add to that the $38 million in "dead cap space" for players that aren't on the roster anymore, and we're at about $45 million.

Just as a spot comparison, I picked a team that is generally considered a well-run team, one that doesn't do a lot of flashy free agent signing, but is also up against the cap: the Steelers. They have about $10 million in "dead cap space" for players not on the roster. But they're prorating about $17.5 million in bonuses for Roethlisberger and six other players currently on their roster. So they actually have about $27.5 million in "dead cap space." The Giants have about $3 million "dead cap space," but they have about $24 million in prorated bonuses for 12 players. These are not comprehensive comparisons, just a quick look at the top guys whose 2012 cap hits included prorated bonus money.

Anyways, my point is just that "dead cap space" is not unique to the 2012 Colts. Having $38 million allocated to players no longer on the roster is an anomaly, but we're making up for some of that with contracts for guys we just signed/re-signed. And it's good that we're getting so much contribution from young, cheap players. It is a handicap, and it makes it somewhat difficult to field a competitive team. Of course, we've overcome it, sitting at 5-3, when most people didn't expect us to win five games all season.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is nice we'll have cap space next year but if you look at the cap space of other teams we arent the only team with money to spend this offseason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so much ignorance in one place.

talk about a face palm...where do i start.

Ya, it's like a DECADE of WINNING was an illusion.

sigh.. oh well..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is nice we'll have cap space next year but if you look at the cap space of other teams we arent the only team with money to spend this offseason.

I may be wrong.. . but Indy should have THE MOST?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the point of the OP. We are a bit handicapped this season because of the way we terminated some contracts. We're allocating nearly $40 million of our $120 million cap space to players that are no longer on the team.

But the idea of "dead cap space" is a bit of a misnomer, to be honest. Or, I guess I should say, the idea that we're the only team with dead cap space is off base. Every team has dead cap space. The way contracts affect team payrolls means that there is necessarily a "dead cap hit" for a great deal of players on every roster. Dwight Freeney is the best example of this on our roster: his cap hit includes a prorated $5 million bonus that was actually part of a $30 million bonus that was paid several seasons ago. That's a dead cap hit. (Some would say his $14 million base salary for 2012 is a dead cap hit as well, but that's another discussion entirely.)

On our current roster, we don't have very many players that have large prorated bonuses hitting our cap this season. The biggest reason why that's the case is because our five best/most productive players this season are either lower paid players or just signed/re-signed this offseason, or both. For instance, Wayne and Mathis (both in that top five) just signed contracts that will average $6 million/year and $9 million/year, respectively. Their bonuses and first year salary are $8.5 million and $17 million, respectively. But their cap hits for 2012 are $3.5 million and $5.75 million, lower than both the yearly average and the 2012 total cash outlay. Same thing for Luck, Redding, Satele, and the other players we drafted and/or signed this past offseason. We're getting more bang for our buck on a significant portion of our roster, especially among key players.

The only players that are actually on the roster and taking up significantly more cap space than cash space are Freeney (plus $5 million), Vinatieri (plus $1.2 million), and Bethea (plus $1 million). Add to that the $38 million in "dead cap space" for players that aren't on the roster anymore, and we're at about $45 million.

Just as a spot comparison, I picked a team that is generally considered a well-run team, one that doesn't do a lot of flashy free agent signing, but is also up against the cap: the Steelers. They have about $10 million in "dead cap space" for players not on the roster. But they're prorating about $17.5 million in bonuses for Roethlisberger and six other players currently on their roster. So they actually have about $27.5 million in "dead cap space." The Giants have about $3 million "dead cap space," but they have about $24 million in prorated bonuses for 12 players. These are not comprehensive comparisons, just a quick look at the top guys whose 2012 cap hits included prorated bonus money.

Anyways, my point is just that "dead cap space" is not unique to the 2012 Colts. Having $38 million allocated to players no longer on the roster is an anomaly, but we're making up for some of that with contracts for guys we just signed/re-signed. And it's good that we're getting so much contribution from young, cheap players. It is a handicap, and it makes it somewhat difficult to field a competitive team. Of course, we've overcome it, sitting at 5-3, when most people didn't expect us to win five games all season.

Great post... ... Thank you bro...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any thoughts on potential free agents, from other teams, who may be interested in joining the Colts for the Andrew Luck era? One would think any offensive player (linemen, backs or receivers) would consider playing with Luck a great chance to increase their odds of winning the big one someday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the point of the OP. We are a bit handicapped this season because of the way we terminated some contracts. We're allocating nearly $40 million of our $120 million cap space to players that are no longer on the team.

But the idea of "dead cap space" is a bit of a misnomer, to be honest. Or, I guess I should say, the idea that we're the only team with dead cap space is off base. Every team has dead cap space. The way contracts affect team payrolls means that there is necessarily a "dead cap hit" for a great deal of players on every roster. Dwight Freeney is the best example of this on our roster: his cap hit includes a prorated $5 million bonus that was actually part of a $30 million bonus that was paid several seasons ago. That's a dead cap hit. (Some would say his $14 million base salary for 2012 is a dead cap hit as well, but that's another discussion entirely.)

On our current roster, we don't have very many players that have large prorated bonuses hitting our cap this season. The biggest reason why that's the case is because our five best/most productive players this season are either lower paid players or just signed/re-signed this offseason, or both. For instance, Wayne and Mathis (both in that top five) just signed contracts that will average $6 million/year and $9 million/year, respectively. Their bonuses and first year salary are $8.5 million and $17 million, respectively. But their cap hits for 2012 are $3.5 million and $5.75 million, lower than both the yearly average and the 2012 total cash outlay. Same thing for Luck, Redding, Satele, and the other players we drafted and/or signed this past offseason. We're getting more bang for our buck on a significant portion of our roster, especially among key players.

The only players that are actually on the roster and taking up significantly more cap space than cash space are Freeney (plus $5 million), Vinatieri (plus $1.2 million), and Bethea (plus $1 million). Add to that the $38 million in "dead cap space" for players that aren't on the roster anymore, and we're at about $45 million.

Just as a spot comparison, I picked a team that is generally considered a well-run team, one that doesn't do a lot of flashy free agent signing, but is also up against the cap: the Steelers. They have about $10 million in "dead cap space" for players not on the roster. But they're prorating about $17.5 million in bonuses for Roethlisberger and six other players currently on their roster. So they actually have about $27.5 million in "dead cap space." The Giants have about $3 million "dead cap space," but they have about $24 million in prorated bonuses for 12 players. These are not comprehensive comparisons, just a quick look at the top guys whose 2012 cap hits included prorated bonus money.

Anyways, my point is just that "dead cap space" is not unique to the 2012 Colts. Having $38 million allocated to players no longer on the roster is an anomaly, but we're making up for some of that with contracts for guys we just signed/re-signed. And it's good that we're getting so much contribution from young, cheap players. It is a handicap, and it makes it somewhat difficult to field a competitive team. Of course, we've overcome it, sitting at 5-3, when most people didn't expect us to win five games all season.

Another thing to consider is the carry-over effect. The Jags/Eagles have about 20 million on space in 2012, that they should easily be able to carry 15-18 million into next year. If the Eagles ditch Vick, they open another 15 for 2013, so a lot of depends on what each team has allocated into the 2013 cap.

So it's not a guarantee that the Colts will have the most money to spend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because you have money to spend, it does not mean that you will spend it wisely and well. Just ask the Redskins. :)

We are yet to have an offseason for Grigson with money to spend, so hopefully he does us proud.

The dead cap space, more than anything else, does help us retain the talent that we MUST retain, like Freeman etc.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the point of the OP. We are a bit handicapped this season because of the way we terminated some contracts. We're allocating nearly $40 million of our $120 million cap space to players that are no longer on the team.

But the idea of "dead cap space" is a bit of a misnomer, to be honest. Or, I guess I should say, the idea that we're the only team with dead cap space is off base. Every team has dead cap space. The way contracts affect team payrolls means that there is necessarily a "dead cap hit" for a great deal of players on every roster. Dwight Freeney is the best example of this on our roster: his cap hit includes a prorated $5 million bonus that was actually part of a $30 million bonus that was paid several seasons ago. That's a dead cap hit. (Some would say his $14 million base salary for 2012 is a dead cap hit as well, but that's another discussion entirely.)

On our current roster, we don't have very many players that have large prorated bonuses hitting our cap this season. The biggest reason why that's the case is because our five best/most productive players this season are either lower paid players or just signed/re-signed this offseason, or both. For instance, Wayne and Mathis (both in that top five) just signed contracts that will average $6 million/year and $9 million/year, respectively. Their bonuses and first year salary are $8.5 million and $17 million, respectively. But their cap hits for 2012 are $3.5 million and $5.75 million, lower than both the yearly average and the 2012 total cash outlay. Same thing for Luck, Redding, Satele, and the other players we drafted and/or signed this past offseason. We're getting more bang for our buck on a significant portion of our roster, especially among key players.

The only players that are actually on the roster and taking up significantly more cap space than cash space are Freeney (plus $5 million), Vinatieri (plus $1.2 million), and Bethea (plus $1 million). Add to that the $38 million in "dead cap space" for players that aren't on the roster anymore, and we're at about $45 million.

Just as a spot comparison, I picked a team that is generally considered a well-run team, one that doesn't do a lot of flashy free agent signing, but is also up against the cap: the Steelers. They have about $10 million in "dead cap space" for players not on the roster. But they're prorating about $17.5 million in bonuses for Roethlisberger and six other players currently on their roster. So they actually have about $27.5 million in "dead cap space." The Giants have about $3 million "dead cap space," but they have about $24 million in prorated bonuses for 12 players. These are not comprehensive comparisons, just a quick look at the top guys whose 2012 cap hits included prorated bonus money.

Anyways, my point is just that "dead cap space" is not unique to the 2012 Colts. Having $38 million allocated to players no longer on the roster is an anomaly, but we're making up for some of that with contracts for guys we just signed/re-signed. And it's good that we're getting so much contribution from young, cheap players. It is a handicap, and it makes it somewhat difficult to field a competitive team. Of course, we've overcome it, sitting at 5-3, when most people didn't expect us to win five games all season.

I don't believe you are correct if you are saying that pro rated bounus are counted as "dead cap space." Maybe that's not what you're trying to say but I'm willing to say I'm pretty sure that Freeney's signing bonus signed 5-6 years ago has nothing to do with dead cap space. If Freeney wedre released then the part of his 30 million $ signing bounus that was not already pro rated would be dead cap space. For instance a player signs a 5 year deal and gets a 20 mill $ signing bounus. He is cut after 3 years. The team would take a 8million $ cap hit for the two years that were left on his contract 20 ÷ 5 X 2 + 8. In this case Freeney is in his last year of his contract and that pror ated 5 million is added to his base salary giving him a cap hit of around 19 million. Maybe you are not saying it is dead money , but it appears to read that way. Otherwords players that are still on the team never are counted as part of dead cap space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line.. this squad has some cheez to spend next season...

... heheh..

OL or CB...............................................

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhmmmm ok?

Never seen "Alice In Wonderland"?

It's what the Mad Hatter says. Start at the beginning, and when you come to the end... STOP.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What 5-3 or better team is saddled with more dead cap than us?

No team -- regardless of record -- is carrying more dead cap money than the Colts.

That's bad. But, here's the good.

Our 'dead cap space' issues last a grand total of one season.

For instance, the Titans once had 3 straight years of dead cap money. They were in Dead Cap Money Heck. Those years the teams struggled badly and it led directly to Jeff Fisher leaving. Dead cap space issues effect all teams. Some worse than others. But, at least ours will be done after one year.

Next year, as far as money goes, it's 'Fat City' for the Colts.

Now, we just have to hope that there's good talent to buy in the 2013 Free Agency class, as well as good players in the 2013 draft of college players. And, as we sit here today, I'm not overly confident of either....

But that's another thread for another day.....

Today, as you noted, we're 5-3. I sure didn't see that coming.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe you are correct if you are saying that pro rated bounus are counted as "dead cap space." Maybe that's not what you're trying to say but I'm willing to say I'm pretty sure that Freeney's signing bonus signed 5-6 years ago has nothing to do with dead cap space. If Freeney wedre released then the part of his 30 million $ signing bounus that was not already pro rated would be dead cap space. For instance a player signs a 5 year deal and gets a 20 mill $ signing bounus. He is cut after 3 years. The team would take a 8million $ cap hit for the two years that were left on his contract 20 ÷ 5 X 2 + 8. In this case Freeney is in his last year of his contract and that pror ated 5 million is added to his base salary giving him a cap hit of around 19 million. Maybe you are not saying it is dead money , but it appears to read that way. Otherwords players that are still on the team never are counted as part of dead cap space.

All of what you're saying is true. However, technically speaking, any prorated bonus is "dead cap space," whether the player is still on the team or not. This is the case because that money is increasing your payroll figure above the actual money being paid.

To your point, at least the prorated bonus money for a player still on the roster is helping you on the field. In theory, at least.

But the point is that every team has cap issues due to prorated bonuses. And when you look at certain factors with our 2012 cap, you recognize that the team is actually making up for a lot of the dead cap hits with the structure of the new contracts, most of which are for our very best players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of what you're saying is true. However, technically speaking, any prorated bonus is "dead cap space," whether the player is still on the team or not. This is the case because that money is increasing your payroll figure above the actual money being paid.

To your point, at least the prorated bonus money for a player still on the roster is helping you on the field. In theory, at least.

But the point is that every team has cap issues due to prorated bonuses. And when you look at certain factors with our 2012 cap, you recognize that the team is actually making up for a lot of the dead cap hits with the structure of the new contracts, most of which are for our very best players.

Fact is this. Most good teams have many players with large contracts that are eating up their cap space. Some cases pro rated bonuses , some cases base salaries. The Colts have dumped all their dead space into 2012 and have none going forward. We have one player with a large contract going forward. That is Mathis and it's only for 3 years and it's less than 10 mill per year. Beathea's is one of the larger one and we already paid for most of that one with a large 2010 roster bounus. Luck will cost about 5.5 mill for the next 3 years. No one else is going to get big money , unless you consider Wayne at around 6 mill big. This means we have tons of money to spend in the next couple of years.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the interesting part. Yes we will have money to spend but is there really any talent that'll be out there that's really worth signing? I have a feeling we might be better off to draft and wait another year to really dive in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the interesting part. Yes we will have money to spend but is there really any talent that'll be out there that's really worth signing? I have a feeling we might be better off to draft and wait another year to really dive in.

You always over pay but that's pat of the game I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You always over pay but that's pat of the game I guess.

no it's not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact is this. Most good teams have many players with large contracts that are eating up their cap space. Some cases pro rated bonuses , some cases base salaries. The Colts have dumped all their dead space into 2012 and have none going forward. We have one player with a large contract going forward. That is Mathis and it's only for 3 years and it's less than 10 mill per year. Beathea's is one of the larger one and we already paid for most of that one with a large 2010 roster bounus. Luck will cost about 5.5 mill for the next 3 years. No one else is going to get big money , unless you consider Wayne at around 6 mill big. This means we have tons of money to spend in the next couple of years.

Yup. I'm just saying that prorated bonuses are a part of the process of managing a cap. They are usually between $25-30 million in any given year, especially when you have good players making a lot of money. Our number is abnormally high this season, but it's not the end of the world.

And yes, we will be able to make some offers in free agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the interesting part. Yes we will have money to spend but is there really any talent that'll be out there that's really worth signing? I have a feeling we might be better off to draft and wait another year to really dive in.

there are a lot of players that could help the colts. maybe not a lot of espn headline types, but those seem to turn out for the worse anyway.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because you have money to spend, it does not mean that you will spend it wisely and well. Just ask the Redskins. :)

We are yet to have an offseason for Grigson with money to spend, so hopefully he does us proud.

The dead cap space, more than anything else, does help us retain the talent that we MUST retain, like Freeman etc.

he came out and said he doesn't believe in spending money just to spend it...so hopefull he spends wisely. lotta good potential FA in 2014 too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no it's not

I think it's been pretty well established that teams tend to pay over market for the good free agent players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Henry Melton, Mike Wallace, Sebastian Vollmer, Kraig Urbik, Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie, Bradley Fletcher

Also get a quality starter with that 32nd overall pick in the draft next year. ;)

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Henry Melton, Mike Wallace, Sebastian Vollmer, Kraig Urbik, Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie, Bradley Fletcher

Also get a quality starter with that 32nd overall pick in the draft next year. ;)

You.. I like you.

I'd LOVE to get Mike Wallace. Imagine Luck with Wayne, Wallace, Avery, Hilton, Fleener, Brazill, and Allen?? I don't think there will be enough passing to go around. When Wayne hangs em up, I hope one of the receivers I mentioned will become a route-running sure-handed receiver. JMO, Brazill looked alot like Wayne on that 3-toe tap on the sideline late in the game.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You.. I like you.

I'd LOVE to get Mike Wallace. Imagine Luck with Wayne, Wallace, Avery, Hilton, Fleener, Brazill, and Allen?? I don't think there will be enough passing to go around. When Wayne hangs em up, I hope one of the receivers I mentioned will become a route-running sure-handed receiver. JMO, Brazill looked alot like Wayne on that 3-toe tap on the sideline late in the game.

That just gave me a half chub.....I go full chub thinking about Melton beating up opponents interior line and DRC playing some strong, press coverage. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll gladly pass on Mike Wallace...we don't need that contract. If we're gonna throw down some serious cash we gotta go after Jake Long or Jairus Byrd. This team needs major upgrades on defense and o-line to be a legitimate contender.

I like the potential of our two rookie wrs, and Wayne has a couple more years in the tank as our no.1.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Available Cap $$$ Always goes first to retaining your own players. And they will expect Market Value. Our guys were on TV a lot and got a lot of attention.

Tho Dallas Clark could pass catch, he only had 3 above average seasons. And he couldn`t block at all. I believe his big contract made him the highest paid TE.

Addai made one Pro Bowl. They name them early and he had most of his yardage by the 10th week of the season. He always showed promise but was best as a pass blocker for $tat$, then as a dump off receiver, then as a runner.

Brackett became pretty decent on what was typically bad defenses. He got his $5M+ contract - Only out of respect for good service.

Freeney is still here because pass rush is so important and they needed some Box Office stars around, especially after the big SHOCK.

We will still build thru the draft, you have to.

Grigsons draft looks rock solid to me, much thanks to drafting at the FRONT of each round.

For next season we must add a couple studs on defense as we build the Monster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's been pretty well established that teams tend to pay over market for the good free agent players.

those are just the ones you remember. nobody remembers deals like the saints got with darren sproles or the fair contract johnathon joseph got and has earned every penny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we do have a lot of cap space but we need to save up for when Lucks contract is over in 4 years. :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll gladly pass on Mike Wallace...we don't need that contract. If we're gonna throw down some serious cash we gotta go after Jake Long or Jairus Byrd. This team needs major upgrades on defense and o-line to be a legitimate contender.

I like the potential of our two rookie wrs, and Wayne has a couple more years in the tank as our no.1.

would love jarius byrd....goldson of the 49ers will also be a FA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • For whatever reason, my last few films have been controversial ones. I didn't plan it that way. It just sort of happened, but I will admit that I have always been drawn to provocative subjects ever since I can remember. My latest review called "Confirmation" a 2016 political drama directed by Rick Famuyiwa slides right into that hot button territory as well. I promise to behave myself here & only establish broad brush strokes that the director portrays in this 1 hour & 50 minute piece of cinema, but it will be extremely difficult to restrain my true feelings since I graduated from high school in 1991 & remember very well the US Senate Hearings on Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas on TV & the sexual harassment charges leveled against him by Anita Hill, a former subordinate under Thomas's supervision at the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.]   In the interest of full disclosure, I'm gonna be honest with my audience & say that I believed Miss Hill's testimony back then & I never thought Mr. Thomas should have been confirmed to replace Thurgood Marshall either & the director has this same slant or bias in this production too. Watching this flick took me right back to 1991 during the George H.W. Bush Administration who submitted Thomas's name for consideration to the highest judicial office in the land. It was almost bizarre to see younger versions of anchormen Tom Brokaw & Dan Rather, Andrea Mitchell, & footage of Peter Jennings & Tim Russert, former host of "Meet The Press" both deceased now. The picture does a nice job of blending fictional testimony scenes from Hill & Thomas with archival news footage from CBS, NBC, ABC, & CNN. It's odd to see the primitive nature of TVs & computers back then long before iPhones & iMacs were present in every office in America.    In a nutshell, the movie is divided between 2 sides: Those who believed that Clarence Thomas is being railroaded by groups like NOW [Natl. Organization Of Women] simply because he leans toward the Conservative side on issues & Those on the Progressive side who believed that Anita Hill was sexually harassed by her boss who made several unwanted advances & lewd sexual references toward her based solely on her appearance & physical attractiveness as he saw it refusing to change his behavior after numerous requests to do so.    Plotline: The year is 1991 & Clarence Thomas [Wendell Pierce] has been nominated to fill a vacant seat on the Supreme Court. The chairmen of these Senate Hearing is Joe Biden [Greg Kinnear] from Delaware. The process appears to going along smoothly for Thomas until a current professor of law at The University of Oklahoma named Anita Hill [Kerry Washington] decides to reluctantly testify before Congress in the Senate. I won't bore my audience with Congressional names or the staffers who work on their behalf on both sides of the DC aisle other then to say this: The bulk of this film focuses on the testimony of Hill & how Thomas reacts to the allegations leveled against him.    Clarence Thomas's supporters somehow convince Biden to deliver his testimony first & while giving his opening remarks Thomas claims that these sexual harassment allegations are false, unfounded, & that he treated all his female employees with respect. When Anita Hill is allowed to testify before the Senate, she tells the body assembled there in a long, prepared, typed statement that Mr. Thomas constantly tried to ask her out socially, bragged about the size of his organ, talked about several adult films he had seen despite making her feel very uneasy, & that on 1 occasion he made a deplorable joke about hair from a private region of his body being found on the aluminum can itself. As you listen to Hill say these words out loud, it dawns on you that all the members in these judiciary hearings are men with zero women in elected office at this point. Think about that reality for a second.    Despite the fact that Anita Hill is well educated, well read, articulate, a credible witness, & very bright; the following doubts & allegations are brought against her testimony: Why did it take her so long to bring these sexual harassment charges forward? Why did she continue to have contact with Thomas? Why didn't she just talk about misconduct sooner & bring formal charges against him? Is she just looking for simple fame, fortune, & publicity? Was she secretly attracted to him & Thomas declined her advances so therefore she wants revenge now? Did she get some of her crazy harassment allegations from books like "The Exorcist?" Did she develop a secret, sexual crush on Thomas known as erotomania like she's some sort of mental deviant?    As you watch the absurd theories cast against Miss Hill by senators who believe this is an unfair witch hunt against Clarence Thomas, it makes you upset or it made me furious rather than none of these male Congressmen ever considered the possibility that men in positions of authority could use their stature & influence to manipulate the situation to their advantage thru unwanted advances or even intercourse because they write evaluations on their subordinates that they oversee, they determine a women's future thru promotions or recommendations; they can blackball or prevent females from working at other law firms or any law firm rather ever again. Could a women studying law really saw no to her boss's advances back in 1991 with the 'boys will be boys' mentality? Sadly no, not really. Not if you wanna advance or climb up the legal ladder anyway. In addition, this really ticked me off. Anita Hill's claims of harassment weren't taken seriously in the Senate chamber because she was a black woman instead of a white woman stating these allegations against Thomas. What?!! That's absurd! Why should the color of the woman's skin even matter. That's freaking ridiculous & very insulting.    You wanna know how Clarence Thomas refutes these unsettlingly serious allegations? He calls the whole backlash situation against him a "high tech lynching." Excuse me? You have got to be joking. So let me get this straight, a former employee under your supervision who happen to be black just like you has committed a vile act of racist cruelty against Thomas simply because he was asked several times to stop engaging in lewd conversations about her appearance & Clarence claims that what Anita did to him by testifying is the equivalent to a hate crime? I'm about ready to smack you sir. And the worst part is that nobody in the Senate challenges Thomas on such ludicrous remarks at all. Unbelievable.    Hill even agrees to take a lie detector test to prove that she is telling the truth. However, many who oppose her assertions claim that the results are meaningless because testers can make anybody pass polygraphs if they want. Ah no, first you establish a base line with false responses & then you monitor a person's heart rate & breathing patterns for erratic fluctuations. The only individuals who can pass a polygraph are psychopaths & serial killers with no appreciation for right or wrong & no impulse control. Lie detector tests are almost impossible to fake as long as the professional examiner knows what the hades they are doing.    The picture ends with Miss Hill returning back to Oklahoma. She is tired of fighting against unfounded innuendo about her reputation & character assassination tactics. Once back teaching, she takes comfort & solace in all the letters she receives from women who thank her for opening their eyes against sexual harassment. Clarence Thomas becomes a Supreme Court Justice as we all know.    This film does make think twice about what you say to your female colleagues in the workplace as it should. Can you say some looks nice today without it coming across as inappropriate? I guess it depends on a person's tone, sincerity, & maintaining eye contact without visually wondering to other sections of a co-workers anatomy I guess. Lets roll with a B- on "Confirmation" because Hill & Thomas's performances were quite good & we never see Clarence believe he ever did anything wrong, even though he claims that he can't look his son in the eye anymore while undergoing the confirmation process anyway.    If I ever said anything that made a woman feel uncomfortable about her appearance or attractiveness, I'm sorry.        "Who's to say what's for me to say...be...do
      Cause a big nothing it'll be for me
      The land of opportunity
      The golden chance for me
      My future looks so bright
      Now I think I've seen the light"  
    • He has enough money if he has that big of a problem with this country he can fund a ticket to any country of his choice that he cares enough to stand up for. I am sure he has a passport so it's just a matter of taking care of his finances and get on a jet and fly the hades out of here.
    • You pretty much summed up my thoughts as well. It's hard for me to comprehend why he chose this way to made his voice be heard.
    • I believe they have amended the rules to 'touching the passer'......
  • Welcome New Members

    • Hi And Welcome! You can create a thread after you have 10 approved posts.  When you first join, you can post 5 replies per 24 hours so, it takes 48 hours at minimum before you can post.   Apologies for the inconvenience but it keeps our drive by trouble making to a minimum.
    • Hello Colts Nation   I am a long time reader of this forum but never really participated in comments but hope to join in this season.   Been a Colts fan since the 'move' when i lived in Carmel.  Actually liked the Colts before that when i was younger but it was the uniform that appealed to me.    I am wondering how do I start a topic in a forum?  Do I have to have so many replies before approved?  I tried to find the rules topic on this but no luck.   Thanks   Edit: I finally found the section on the rules to posting.  :-)
  • Members

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.