madmikeisback Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Where are those operational costs? Thought so. Please just stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Please just stop. You can 't speak to profits without understanding what costs are. To say you can is delusional. All you have is revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 You can 't speak to profits without understanding what costs are. To say you can is delusional. All you have is revenue. Do you realize that profits are Revenues - Expenses right? How did you get to 70 without knowing that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Median salary, (the salary at which half are higher, half are lower), for the Houston Texans is $ 848,640. Houston is ranked 16th out of 32 teams in median salary. http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/salaries/team (Sperm informs me Rotoworld is better for salaries and I am sure he is right, but this source is just so convenient). Median does not tell us much. Average is more important. The numbers can readily be found. Mike just chose a shortcut way which supported his supposed premise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Median does not tell us much. Average is more important. The numbers can readily be found. Mike just chose a shortcut way which supported his supposed premise. Yes I took the shortcut... How about you look up the words "profit" and "dividend" before you start sh*ttalking me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Median does not tell us much. Average is more important. The numbers can readily be found. Mike just chose a shortcut way which supported his supposed premise. The median gives you a much more accurate representation of the what the true average player in the NFL makes. The average is skewed unrealistically high due to a handful of huge contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Yes I took the shortcut... How about you look up the words "profit" and "dividend" before you start sh*ttalking me. So where are costs in this equation? You think costs have not skyrocketed during this period? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 The median gives you a much more accurate representation of the what the true average player in the NFL makes. The average is skewed unrealistically high due to a handful of huge contracts. Would those "salaries" include bonuses, too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 So where are costs in this equation? You think costs have not skyrocketed during this period? They are expenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 They are expenses. Please show income of each NFL franchise. Revenues minus total cost of sales minus operating expenses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Please show income of each NFL franchise. Revenues minus total cost of sales minus operating expenses Please just admit that you have no idea what you're talking about. You're wasting everyone's time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 The median gives you a much more accurate representation of the what the true average player in the NFL makes. The average is skewed unrealistically high due to a handful of huge contracts. Except for the fact that the question isn't what your average schmuck backup player is making vs the profit of an NFL franchise (especially since not even the NFLPA gives a crap about that), the question is what the overall player base is earning compared to the NFL owners, and median is intentionally diluted number that isn't a valid comparison. Consider the fact that, as a general rule, the median contract on a roster is the 4th highest paid backup / special teams player on the team. That number will always be somewhere near the veteran minimum regardless of the circumstances, because these are not the guys who earn the vast majority of the NFL's money. We're not even talking about the huge superstar contracts skewing numbers, this number isn't even representative of your typical NFL starter. If that number includes practice squad players as well (which I have no idea if it does), then it's an even bigger joke. Without even getting into the actual argument itself, it can't even be rationalized that the median NFL salary is a valid representation of an NFL salary, and certainly not to use for the determination of average salary increase for an NFL player over a period of time. That would be like evaluating the NFL franchises increase in value based solely on the change in profit margin for one of the least profitable divisions in the organization. It doesn't make any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I don't have the average salary data. I'm pretty sure it would look pretty much the same as the median data I posted though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Please just admit that you have no idea what you're talking about. You're wasting everyone's time. Obviously YOU don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I don't have the average salary data. I'm pretty sure it would look pretty much the same as the median data I posted though. That's persuasive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Would those "salaries" include bonuses, too? Yes. Because when they computate the average they use the total value of the contract which includes signing bonuses. A vast majority of the NFL's players will never see an 8-figure signing bonus, most are lucky if they ever seen a 7-figure bonus. I love how people act like making it to the NFL is akin to winning the lottery. Lets look at the actual average NFL player: The average player has a career that lasts 3.5 years and makes about 850K per year. After taxes he's taking home about 500k. 500k x 3.5 years $1,750,000.00. Subtract their living expenses during their career, and lets face it, your typical 24-year-old making half a mil a year ain't going to act like that money is going to have to last them the next 50 years, much less your average 24-year-old NFL player. So figure by the time that guy's career is over at the age of 26 due to a completely destroyed knee, he's got about 6 or 700k left, but probably less. That's not setting anyone up for the rest of their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Except for the fact that the question isn't what your average schmuck backup player is making vs the profit of an NFL franchise (especially since not even the NFLPA gives a crap about that), the question is what the overall player base is earning compared to the NFL owners, and median is intentionally diluted number that isn't a valid comparison. Consider the fact that, as a general rule, the median contract on a roster is the 4th highest paid backup / special teams player on the team. That number will always be somewhere near the veteran minimum regardless of the circumstances, because these are not the guys who earn the vast majority of the NFL's money. We're not even talking about the huge superstar contracts skewing numbers, this number isn't even representative of your typical NFL starter. If that number includes practice squad players as well (which I have no idea if it does), then it's an even bigger joke. Without even getting into the actual argument itself, it can't even be rationalized that the median NFL salary is a valid representation of an NFL salary, and certainly not to use for the determination of average salary increase for an NFL player over a period of time. That would be like evaluating the NFL franchises increase in value based solely on the change in profit margin for one of the least profitable divisions in the organization. It doesn't make any sense. So what do you figure? The "average" NFL player makes a salary that is somewhere between the average salary and the median salary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Yes. Because when they computate the average they use the total value of the contract which includes signing bonuses. A vast majority of the NFL's players will never see an 8-figure signing bonus, most are lucky if they ever seen a 7-figure bonus. I love how people act like making it to the NFL is akin to winning the lottery. Lets look at the actual average NFL player: The average player has a career that lasts 3.5 years and makes about 850K per year. After taxes he's taking home about 500k. 500k x 3.5 years $1,750,000.00. Subtract their living expenses during their career, and lets face it, your typical 24-year-old making half a mil a year ain't going to act like that money is going to have to last them the next 50 years, much less your average 24-year-old NFL player. So figure by the time that guy's career is over at the age of 26 due to a completely destroyed knee, he's got about 6 or 700k left, but probably less. That's not setting anyone up for the rest of their lives. Certainly better than your average college grad. No one ever said they were spoiled are overly lucky. But, alas it is a business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Yes. Because when they computate the average they use the total value of the contract which includes signing bonuses. A vast majority of the NFL's players will never see an 8-figure signing bonus, most are lucky if they ever seen a 7-figure bonus. I love how people act like making it to the NFL is akin to winning the lottery. Lets look at the actual average NFL player: The average player has a career that lasts 3.5 years and makes about 850K per year. After taxes he's taking home about 500k. 500k x 3.5 years $1,750,000.00. Subtract their living expenses during their career, and lets face it, your typical 24-year-old making half a mil a year ain't going to act like that money is going to have to last them the next 50 years, much less your average 24-year-old NFL player. So figure by the time that guy's career is over at the age of 26 due to a completely destroyed knee, he's got about 6 or 700k left, but probably less. That's not setting anyone up for the rest of their lives. You mean there are people who don't know this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Certainly better than your average college grad. No one ever said they were spoiled are overly lucky. But, alas it is a business. Your average college grad is going to earn about four times the amount of money over his career than the player I used in the example will make in his NFL career. The average NFL player also has a sham degree and isn't really qualified to do anything and can barely walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Your average college grad is going to earn about four times the amount of money over his career than the player I used in the example will make in his NFL career. The average NFL player also has a sham degree and isn't really qualified to do anything and can barely walk. And had made many times that amount for his employers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Your average college grad is going to earn about four times the amount of money over his career than the player I used in the example will make in his NFL career. The average NFL player also has a sham degree and isn't really qualified to do anything and can barely walk. Is it the NFL's fault that there are sham degrees? What are you wanting of them? How much effort has the NFLPA given to their retired brethren? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 The average NFL salary is not $850K. Using "median" for the average means whether someone makes $3M or $23M a season it counts the same because it still only cancels out one player below the median. That's like using median to do your household bills. With that logic, it doesn't matter if you have mortgage payments on a house that cost $100K or a house that cost $5M because the median would remain unchanged: half your bills would still be above the median and half below. Median salary. lol. You add up the total on the salary cap and divide by 51. If the average cap number is $120M then the average salary is about $2.3M, not $850K. What utter silliness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barcs Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 we should just abolish unions and lawyers. I think that would solve everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 The average NFL salary is not $850K. Using "median" for the average means whether someone makes $3M or $23M a season it counts the same because it still only cancels out one player below the median. That's like using median to do your household bills. With that logic, it doesn't matter if you have mortgage payments on a house that cost $100K or a house that cost $5M because the median would remain unchanged: half your bills would still be above the median and half below. Median salary. lol. Sperm, I don't really give a ****. I just know the average NFL salary isn't an accurate representation of what the average NFL player makes. I figured the mediam would be closer to the truth. Like I said in my response to BG, do you figure the truth lies somewhere in between? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 The average NFL salary is not $850K. Using "median" for the average means whether someone makes $3M or $23M a season it counts the same because it still only cancels out one player below the median. That's like using median to do your household bills. With that logic, it doesn't matter if you have mortgage payments on a house that cost $100K or a house that cost $5M because the median would remain unchanged: half your bills would still be above the median and half below. Median salary. lol. You add up the total on the salary cap and divide by 51. If the average cap number is $120M then the average salary is about $2.3M, not $850K. What utter silliness. That's fine and good. The average NFL player does not make 2.3 millon. If they did, the cap would have to be much higher because more than half the players are average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 The average NFL salary is not $850K. Using "median" for the average means whether someone makes $3M or $23M a season it counts the same because it still only cancels out one player below the median. Problem? One player should count for 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nycdan Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Wow...who needs football when we can watch this gripping math fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Problem? One player should count for 1. lol sure they should. Because we all know everybody in the NFL makes the same thing. So if Revis made $5M or $16M for 1 season it's the same thing then, right? I wonder what all the fuss was about from the Revis camp last summer. All the Jets had to do was show him that he was making above the median. 1 for 1. Jeff Cumberland canceled him out so he didn't need a raise. When Tannenbaum does his cap maneuvering every offseason does he have to keep the total under the hard cap limit or does he merely need to prevent 26 of the players from making $850K in new money (since past bonus money doesn't count in those figures cited)? The "problem" as you put it, Mike, is that it insinuates that the average salary is something that it is not. The average salary is the mean, not the median. The two figures are not interchangeable. Hell, even on the web page there is a column with a column header in all caps that clearly states "AVG SALARY" but for the purposes of slanting a point of view, that number was conveniently ignored and instead a median salary was used. Also, there is a finite "bottom" that a team cannot go lower than. There is a minimum salary in the NFL (as there should be). But there is no maximum (nor should there be). In that situation, the median will always be significantly lower than the mean unless a team signs no players at the league minimum and no players who make even 2rd-tier money. If the players' issue is that half the players make under the woefully low number of $850K then they could raise the minimum salary. There would be zero resistance from the owners (since the cap limit is the cap limit no matter how much the lowest-paid player makes). Yet the players remain silent on that front. Strange how the NLFPA doesn't do this; they have the audacity to believe that superstars should get paid more than scrubs and that starters should get paid more than backups. Weird people. Wow...who needs football when we can watch this gripping math fight. Easily the best post in the thread right here. That's fine and good. The average NFL player does not make 2.3 millon. If they did, the cap would have to be much higher because more than half the players are average. The average salary is $2.3M. My point was in response to a post that stated the average NFL salary was whatever the median NFL salary is. Plenty make less than that, but it's only right. Erik Ainge should not be making as much as Mark Sanchez, and part-time players should not be making as much as starters or superstars despite madmike's silly "1 for 1" comment Anyone who has an issue with this theoretically should be in favor of a top-end salary limit for any individual player because it robbed junkie scrubs like Erik Ainge from the opportunity to make an average NFL salary and also keeps the pay for the average player lower. Personally I don't care how much or how little any of them make. I just want to watch football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nycdan Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Personally I don't care how much or how little any of them make. I just want to watch football. Amen, brother Herm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Whenever Sperm starts talking about the cap, I usually duck and cover. I have an acute awareness of my weaknesses and, also, no pride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbatesman Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 we should just abolish unions and lawyers. I think that would solve everything. Awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 The average salary is the mean, not the median. The two figures are not interchangeable. I haven't really read the last few pages of this one, but please tell me that this is not the premise of the argument that's been ensuing. Please. Lie to me if you must. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I haven't really read the last few pages of this one, but please tell me that this is not the premise of the argument that's been ensuing. Please. Lie to me if you must. Are you trying to say that the median salary, which would be that of a backup player on a given roster, isn't a proper reflection of the total player compensation? You're so silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Are you trying to say that the median salary, which would be that of a backup player on a given roster, isn't a proper reflection of the total player compensation? You're so silly. Exactly. And it's the 20-somethings' fault we're effed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.