gscarpenter2002 said:
You guys are both missing the point. What drives everything is the guaranteed percentage that will go to the players - 54%. If teams try to pocket their cash but the league goes under 54%, the cash is going to be topped up by the teams. If it is more, the teams get it back.
I am well aware that a certain percentage will go towards the players. While you're discussing the ramifications of the entire league's failure to reach that percentage, my posts focus on the monetary acitivities of the bottom 10 teams that would apparently receive an extra 6 M of revenues. Since I'm assuming the top 20 teams will more than make up for any short-comings of the bottom 10 (d/t to the cap figure being so high and the lack of a luxury tax to act as a deterrent), I'm arguing these struggling franchises will keep these monies (to either break even or make a profit) rather than spend it on player costs (after having met the cap floor). It was, however, wrong for me to assume these 10 teams will all virtually make a profit as a result of this revenue sharing...just about when I was ready to proclaim it profit sharing. It also isn't a foregone conclusion the player's percentage of total revenues will be met through team payrolls alone as I have also assumed...
If the projected revenues for next season are correct (1.8 B), an average of 32.4 M per team would gaurantee the players 54%. Hypothetically, if the cap is as high as 39 M (with the top 10 teams reaching that max and the middle ten having payrolls around 32.4 M), all that would be needed from the bottom ten is an average salary of 25.8 M (close enough to the 22 M floor anyway and highly attainable without the help of revenue sharing)...these bottom ten could easily pocket the shared profits they receive from the large market clubs.