blog article

sidebar

calendar monthNovember 2009

Oct Nov Dec

2008 2009 2010

bios

author bio

thumbnail image

name Lee_Russakoff

title

body Life is for Livers

mission

list 1

title Latest Blog Entries

blog info

title

Russakoff Rules

synopsis

articles

article

description

subject

Must Be the Money

date 06-29-2009 04:46 PM
author Lee_Russakoff writes:

body

Ahh ... the age-old question. Can you buy yourself a championship? Of course, the answer has been 'no' for the Yankees this decade, but what about in the NFL?

Last week, in a blog on NFL.com, Jason La Confora rolled out the raw numbers; namely how much "committed cash" each NFL team spent from 2004-08. Committed cash is "a fancy way of saying how much each team spent in actual dollars (not salary cap funny money) on player costs during a fixed period of time."

La Confora noted that most successful teams were somewhere in the middle of the pack, but promised further analysis. Today he delivered by calculating how much a team has spent for each of its wins over that time span. Bet you can't guess who's on top...

Without further adieu, I give you the NFL "Bang for the Buck" rankings:

Team Wins Commited Cash Cost Per Win

1.) Patriots 63 512.31M 8.14 M

2.) Colts 63 532.77 M 8.44 M

3.) Chargers 54 485.46 M 8.99 M
4.) Steelers 56 516.69 M 9.22 M
5.) Broncos 47 485.40 M 10.37 M
6.) Giants 47 497.63 M 10.58 M
7.) Jaguars 45 480.06 M 10.66 M
8. ) Eagles 46 495.75 M 10.77 M
9.) Bears 45 495.57 M 11.01 M
10.) Packers 41 457.16 M 11.15 M
11.) Panthers 45 516.09 M 11.46 M
12.) Ravens 44 507.05 M 11.52 M
13.) Titans 40 465.28 M 11.63 M
14.) Bucs 38 449.00 M 11.81 M
15.) Seahawks 45 552.42 M 12.27 M
16.) Falcons 41 493.07 M 12.07 M
17.) Cowboys 46 566.89 M 12.32 M
18.) Vikings 41 526.87 M 12.85 M
19.) Bengals 38 491.05 M 12.92 M
20.) Jets 37 502.53 M 13.58 M
21.) Bills 35 483.71 M 13.82 M
22.) Chiefs 32 451.58 M 14.11 M
23.) Saints 36 518.49 M 14.40 M
24.) Redskins 38 547.37 M 14.40 M
25.) Cardinals 34 505.30 M 14.86 M
26.) Dolphins 31 500.56 M 16.14 M
27.) Texans 31 522.23 M 16.84 M
28.) Browns 28 506.43 M 18.08 M
29.) Rams 27 502.08 M 18.59 M
30.) 49ers 25 486.40 M 19.45 M
31.) Lions 21 505.04 M 24.04 M
32.) Raiders 20 513.21 M 25.66 M

Your Feedback

OK, so what do you make of the two lists? Sound off here.

Message Edited by Lee_Russakoff on 06-29-2009 05:28 PM

Comments

comments

article

description

subject

Re: Must Be the Money

comment number 1
date 06-29-2009 05:09 PM
author midwest2u writes:

body It's no wonder Ozzi would say something like this. Typical of him! It just shows how unprofessional he is. Why any sports figure would want to call any fan stupid. Without us the franchise would fall apart. I've been watching sports in Chicago all my life and prefer the Cubs, but I also support the Sox. Sure were crosstown rivals, but why does this nonesence have to come down to the fans. As for Wrigley being a bar arena, tell me one park that doesn't have beer or sports bars around the park. I'll even bet Ozzi consumes more than a few beers and most likely tequila and his lime. He should spend more time sucking on his lime than opening his big mouth. From a loyal cubs and sports fan.

article

description

subject

Re: Must Be the Money

comment number 2
date 06-29-2009 08:16 PM
author wrench writes:

body This list is pretty dumb. I think if you did the numbers the opposite way per loss wouldn't the patriots spend the most per loss? Does the NFL not have a salary cap? By dividing the numbers based on number of victories, not games played you destroy any reasonable examination of the spending. I realize this is a flawed attempt to highlight the fact that in the NFL that its not about the money, quite different from baseball, but I believe that most teams in the league spend remarkably similar amounts though some obviously make much more due to their market. The math doesn't add up unless you can't do math. This is a dumb statistic and unfortunately we are all dumber having had it brought to out attention. May God have mercy on our souls.

article

description

subject

Re: Must Be the Money

comment number 3
date 06-29-2009 10:50 PM
author tegra writes:

body All the critics come out when NFL salary is discuss. I don't thank they have a clue with what rehab/training that is endured in prep every week. Baseball is a sport but very little contact is involved. How so, many game is played clearly you can see what it generate with the large stadiums per game. Football player choose to engage in this passionate sport from grass roots of their discipline up-breing. I must admit that, for the most part the long drawn-out schedules of baseball and basketball leaves alot out of what do-or-die sports like football bring to the table. This is not a compliant for what is offered in it's intensity of an athelete.

article

description

subject

Re: Must Be the Money

comment number 4
date 06-30-2009 07:32 AM
author halfalife writes:

body Dear tegra, please learn how to write, please. Your statement is indicative of either too many drugs or someone hit you in the head with a baseball bat. I realize public sachool is only designed to keep people stupid enough to vote for Obama, but come on.

article

description

subject

Re: Must Be the Money

comment number 5
date 06-30-2009 01:59 PM
author yagottabeekiddin writes:

body The most disappointing has to be the Redskins with only a 2004 season play-off appearance followed by the Cowboys. Throw in the debacle called the Raiders and what is apparent is meddling,stupid,and in Al Davis' case over-the-hill ownership. The Ford family owned Lions have replaced the Bidwells as the most stupid ownership int he NFL.

article

description

subject

Re: Must Be the Money

comment number 6
date 07-01-2009 10:52 AM
author Jman2009 writes:

body To Tegra I can only say, HUH? Could you repeat that, this time in English?

For everyone else, this is a stupid list. Turn it around an you'll find that the Lions and Raiders spent less for their losses than anyone else. Of course teams that have more wins are going to have paid a lower amount per win. It's called the law of averages.

article

description

subject

Re: Must Be the Money

comment number 7
date 07-06-2009 12:49 PM
author total-eclipse writes:

body

I would just like to know your ( Jason La Confora ) source(s) for these lists... and the validity or accuracy of those figures. I personally am more interested in seeing the $$$REAL$$$ figures that aren't above the table to evaluate the truth and facts of this analysis, but obviously those figures will never be brought to light or public knowledge ~

& Jman ~ You gotta real simple yet valid point !

Message Edited by total-eclipse on 07-06-2009 10:05 AM

Message Edited by total-eclipse on 07-06-2009 10:17 AM

reply You must be registered to add a comment about this blog. Click here to register.

Comcast.net

Forums

Russakoff Rules

Must Be the Money

Re: Must Be the Money

Re: Must Be the Money

Re: Must Be the Money

Re: Must Be the Money

Re: Must Be the Money

Re: Must Be the Money

Re: Must Be the Money