About that rolling 89% Salary Cap number...?

[NewColtsFan]

....  so over a 3-year period,  an NFL team has to be above an 89% rolling average on salary cap spending.      It's my understanding that you can be below in any given year or even two,  but not for a three year period.    Otherwise penalties kick in....

 

I've seen stories about which teams are below the rolling average and which teams are not,  and to the best of my recollection (not the most reliable) the Colts have NOT been below the rolling average.

 

Poster Narcosys says we've been "padding" contracts the last two years because we ARE below the rolling average.    He's expecting the Colts to "pad" contracts again this year to keep our average up.

I don't recall this claim ever being made here before....

 

Anyone here have access to any info to confirm the info one way or the other?    Anyone know?

[Superman]

Between 2013 and 2016 (and again, between 2017 and 2020), teams have to spend 89% of the NFL salary cap on player contracts.

 

In 2013, the cap was $123.6m. In 2014, the cap was $133m. 

 

In 2013, the Colts spent about $129m against the cap (due to rollover cap space and retroactive cap adjustments). In 2014, the Colts spent about $123.7m against the cap. 

 

So far, over the previous two seasons, we're at about 98.5%. 

 

In 2015, the cap is $144.8m. In order to stay at 89%, we have to spend about $105m against the cap in 2015. We already have $122m committed to the 2015 cap, pending additional roster moves. 

 

If we don't spend anything else but the $122m we already have committed, and the 2016 cap goes all the way to $160m, then we'd have to spend $125m in 2016.

 

Long story short, we're on pace to meet and exceed the 89% spending floor from 2013-2016.

 

I don't know why anyone would think the Colts are "padding" contracts to meet the requirement. They have typically stuck with balanced contracts that have low signing bonuses, but relatively even or gradually increasing cap hits over the life of the contract. 

[crazycolt1]

Between 2013 and 2016 (and again, between 2017 and 2020), teams have to spend 89% of the NFL salary cap on player contracts.

 

In 2013, the cap was $123.6m. In 2014, the cap was $133m. 

 

In 2013, the Colts spent about $129m against the cap (due to rollover cap space and retroactive cap adjustments). In 2014, the Colts spent about $123.7m against the cap. 

 

So far, over the previous two seasons, we're at about 98.5%. 

 

In 2015, the cap is $144.8m. In order to stay at 89%, we have to spend about $105m against the cap in 2015. We already have $122m committed to the 2015 cap, pending additional roster moves. 

 

If we don't spend anything else but the $122m we already have committed, and the 2016 cap goes all the way to $160m, then we'd have to spend $125m in 2016.

 

Long story short, we're on pace to meet and exceed the 89% spending floor from 2013-2016.

 

I don't know why anyone would think the Colts are "padding" contracts to meet the requirement. They have typically stuck with balanced contracts that have low signing bonuses, but relatively even or gradually increasing cap hits over the life of the contract. 

Well stated. There seems to be a few who have problems with the contracts the Colts have signed. You have tried to explain a few times that was not the case but some refuse to see it for what it is.

[loudnproudcolt]

I have put up a link to the USA today piece on cap space and the teams who are in good shape, and the teams who need to spend the next two years. The colts are fine. What I find interesting is certain teams who are under the 89% mark, but who are always right against the cap it seems, or close. You expect the Jags, and Raiders, but the Cowboys and Patriots. It must be how they structure their contracts and what they are actually paying out. It is a very interesting article, and makes you think about how contracts are structured, and how the numbers really don't represent what is happening as far as money being spent a lot of times when you see contracts. We all knew this, but it makes you think. I wish I was more of a cap expert, but I did learn a few things. Well worth the read!

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2015/02/17/salary-cap-cash-spending-union-nflpa-raiders-patriots/23522207/

[amfootball]

I have put up a link to the USA today piece on cap space and the teams who are in good shape, and the teams who need to spend the next two years. The colts are fine. What I find interesting is certain teams who are under the 89% mark, but who are always right against the cap it seems, or close. You expect the Jags, and Raiders, but the Cowboys and Patriots. It must be how they structure their contracts and what they are actually paying out. It is a very interesting article, and makes you think about how contracts are structured, and how the numbers really don't represent what is happening as far as money being spent a lot of times when you see contracts. We all knew this, but it makes you think. I wish I was more of a cap expert, but I did learn a few things. Well worth the read!

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2015/02/17/salary-cap-cash-spending-union-nflpa-raiders-patriots/23522207/

The Pats have been under which is why we are hopeful that they will spend on Revis like they did on McCourty.

[Dustin]

Nothing actually happens if you don't hit that 89% deadline. You just have to give out the difference in bonuses to your current players. 

[Valpo2004]

Nothing actually happens if you don't hit that 89% deadline. You just have to give out the difference in bonuses to your current players. 

 

Oh really is that it?  Well it's hardly something to worry about then I would say.  Not to say we shouldn't spend our cap space, but if we don't then our current players get a few extra bucks in their pocket and everything is business as usual.  

[oldunclemark]

The Colts have no issues going forward because they will be re-signing Andrew Luck, TY Hilton and both tight ends...which will lift their spending average considerably and, like Dustin says...there's no real world penalty if any team falls below 89% this year..

I don't know what 'padding the contract' means... If you need to reach the 89% requirement, give a players who signs a bonus..its a win-win,..call it padding...nobody's going to mind