(03-31-2017, 05:56 PM)jowczarski Wrote: @ShakeNBlake – you might have to refresh my memory on for “excuses” that have been used in my three years on the beat. That’s all I can speak to.  See below re: spending on the team.

I don’t think I’ve heard money being an “excuse” for the way the organization is structured, either. Mike has his reasons, but I’ve never heard one of those reasons being financial. And this is all from off record conversations. Now, talking to guys from the 80s and 90s, ya, some of the corners that were cut were ridiculous. But from my POV now, I’m not sure where money is being used as an excuse for anything related to the on-field product.

@depthchart
The Bengals ranked 9th in the NFL in spending over the last five years, per the NFLPA. And trust me, they count every dollar. The Bengals are not cheap when it comes to player salaries, despite the narrative. Every agent I’ve talked to over the years, whether their client has come, gone or stayed, has never used that word with me.

I have no idea what Mike's motivations are for keeping a small personnel department and scouting staff, and not building a practice facility. My educated guess (based on tidbits I've read) is that he's stubbornly old school when it comes to players practicing in elements. Money could be a factor - and let's be honest - if it is, it's not like any of us will ever know. That's just not something he'd admit to. Same deal with the small personnel and scouting staffs.

I wasn't singling you out with the "excuses" remark, Jim. I just feel there's some folks on here who will take what you said and run with it, using it as an excuse for how Mike runs things.

(03-31-2017, 10:52 PM)jowczarski Wrote: @TheLeonardLeap - debating how they spend or on who they spend it on is a fair argument. But the initial point of this particular discussion was "Bengals cheapness," not evaluation.

As for the practice facility ... I know Carson Palmer said something about it but in three years I haven't heard a single player or coach say anything about it, even when I've gone over to UC for a couple of practices. And it hasn't really affected players re-signing or signing that I'm aware of.

As for the staff ... Again, haven't heard much about it internally from those putting in the work. Trust me, I've been around enough organizations where people will complain about the job (we all do) but to date, haven't heard it's an issue with anyone.

As for Geoff - he is employed by the team. Again, not sure what everyone wants from him.

Whit and DreKirk have complained in the past. I only know because I've posted the links in past debates on the subject. I believe Whit - in typical polite fashion - suggested that all the players would welcome it, and mentioned how hard it was to to install a game plan when you can't even get traction in the rain/snow.

(03-31-2017, 11:09 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Whit and DreKirk have complained in the past. I only know because I've posted the links in past debates on the subject. I believe Whit - in typical polite fashion - suggested that all the players would welcome it, and mentioned how hard it was to to install a game plan when you can't even get traction in the rain/snow.

I call BS. Bengals play 16 games a year minimum. How many snow/rain practices has the team had the past 10 years where they dd not use the UC bubble or move practice to Mason indoor facility or move the practice time? You have been whining about no inside practice facility for a decade.

(04-01-2017, 10:48 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I call BS. Bengals play 16 games a year minimum. How many snow/rain practices has the team had the past 10 years where they dd not use the UC bubble or move practice to Mason indoor facility or move the practice time? You have been whining about no inside practice facility for a decade.

Here luvnit is just one of several statistics on the matter I quickly found. Fact is it matters ! This isn't 1975 anymore.


Because in today's NFL, the single most important long-term investment an owner can make in a franchise is a top training facility, specifically one with a large, indoor practice field in a permanent structure. (Not merely a bubble.) Such a facility enables the team to conduct crisp practices for all 16 games and the playoffs, providing "Home Facilities Advantage" for all games.

Consider these statistics:

• 13 of last 14 Super Bowl participants had their own indoor practice facility.
• Last 8 Super Bowl winners had their own indoor practice facility.
• Last 6 Super Bowl winners had a fixed structure indoor practice facility (not a bubble).
• All 12 teams to make playoffs last season used their own indoor practice facility.
• 2010 teams who practiced using their own indoor full-field training facility had a median win total of 10 (10-6 record).
• 2010 teams who practiced outdoors had a median win total of 6 (6-10 record).
• 2010 teams who practiced indoors at own training facility averaged 4 more wins in 2010, compared to those who did not.
• 2010 teams who practiced outdoors and were not located in Florida or California, had the following records: 6-10 (Redskins), 6-10 (Cowboys), 5-11 (Cardinals), 4-12 (Bengals), 4-12 (Broncos), 2-14 (Panthers).
  

Sure, the Redskins will apparently have a bubble finally for the 2011 season. But, a bubble is a cheap solution, costing as little as $100K. That's a few plays from Albert Haynesworth. These days, the going rate for a world-class NFL training facility is $75 million. That's what the Jets paid for theirs. Dan Snyder & Co are pocketing $780 million and tossing Mike Shanahan a bubble.
The last time a bubble produced a Super Bowl champion was the 2005 Patriots, whose success was more directly traced to Tom Brady and Bill Belichick. The Patriots have since been beaten in the playoffs by teams with superior training facilities:
2006-07: Colts
2007-08: Giants
2009-10: Ravens
2010-11: Jets
The Patriots are the high-water mark of bubble teams, and they've been outflanked by teams with better training facilities. Other teams with bubbles have done worse: Texans, Titans, Dolphins. All three of those teams have bubbles barely large enough for 100 yards.

(04-01-2017, 10:48 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I call BS. Bengals play 16 games a year minimum. How many snow/rain practices has the team had the past 10 years where they dd not use the UC bubble or move practice to Mason indoor facility or move the practice time? You have been whining about no inside practice facility for a decade.

I don't BS:

https://m.bengals.com/news/article-1/Notes-Playing-to-win-Changes-bubble-Nugent-full-go-Geno-loses-sack/04419efd-e5c2-4b02-bcce-4a070e2384d0

Whitworth Wrote:: "The day is kind of the same other than just getting on a bus. I did it in college. It doesn't change much," Whitworth said. "I don't think that's a big difference as much as it is just getting to go inside and throw the football and run the football and make cuts and you don't have to worry about falling down or being in the ice or wind or wherever every single day. Sometimes in practice you're trying to work against looks and it's hard to get the speed of the looks when everybody is worried about their footing or the conditions."

They have practiced outdoors. Before playoffs games in fact:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/sports/football/bengals-using-bubble-avoid-trouble/G5F6nobXsae1uupUJTJ8mO/

Quote:Jay Morrison Staff Writer
8:29 p.m Tuesday, Jan. 1, 2013 Sports
SPORTS

CINCINNATI
Tuesday afternoon the Cincinnati Bengals made their second trip in as many weeks to the University of Cincinnati’s practice bubble, which is something they didn’t do at all ahead of last year’s playoff game despite even lower temperatures.


The team began preparations for last year’s game in Houston practicing outside in 22-degree weather with a 14-degree wind chill that left wide receiver A.J. Green complaining of numb toes and no doubt played a role in quarterback Andy Dalton getting sick enough to miss the entire practice the following day.

A UC official said the temperature inside the bubble was 70 degrees Tuesday.

“The one good thing about playing at Houston is that it will be indoors, and not where we have to worry about the weather and all of that,” Dalton said. “I think it’s good for us to go over to UC and get these practices in and practice in a similar atmosphere to what game conditions will be like.”

The bubble not only helps simulate the weather, but the noise.

“(Reliant Stadium) was the loudest place we’ve played at in the last two years, easily,” wide receiver Andrew Hawkins said. “That’s good practice for us because it’s going to be hard to hear yourself think. You have to be able to be poised in the noise, as coach always says, and that’s what we’ll work for.”

The point of my argument has never been whether or not the Bengals use UC's facility. They do...although I imagine it's much more difficult to arrange everything at UC or the soccer complex than it would be to have their own facility with their own weight room etc in the complex ala the other 31 NFL teams and most college ones.

My point has always been that they shouldn't have to clear things with UC or plan ahead of time to use a college teams complex. It's also Mike Brown's attitude towards the whole issue. We have players getting numb toes, getting sick, and slipping on ice before a playoff game...and Mike is somehow okay with that ever happening.

Marv thought enough of the whole practice facility issue that it was said it was one of the things he held out for in 2011. Mike seemed to compromise on the issue, and Hobson put up an article that suggested one was in the works. Six years later and still no word. Instead it remains as a sign that while Mike may have changed in some ways, he will never change in others.

Btw...you've been defending the Bengals not having one for just as long as I've been ripping them for it. 

(04-02-2017, 01:54 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I don't BS:

https://m.bengals.com/news/article-1/Notes-Playing-to-win-Changes-bubble-Nugent-full-go-Geno-loses-sack/04419efd-e5c2-4b02-bcce-4a070e2384d0


They have practiced outdoors. Before playoffs games in fact:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/sports/football/bengals-using-bubble-avoid-trouble/G5F6nobXsae1uupUJTJ8mO/



The point of my argument has never been whether or not the Bengals use UC's facility. They do...although I imagine it's much more difficult to arrange everything at UC or the soccer complex than it would be to have their own facility with their own weight room etc in the complex ala the other 31 NFL teams and most college ones.

My point has always been that they shouldn't have to clear things with UC or plan ahead of time to use a college teams complex. It's also Mike Brown's attitude towards the whole issue. We have players getting numb toes, getting sick, and slipping on ice before a playoff game...and Mike is somehow okay with that ever happening.

Marv thought enough of the whole practice facility issue that it was said it was one of the things he held out for in 2011. Mike seemed to compromise on the issue, and Hobson put up an article that suggested one was in the works. Six years later and still no word. Instead it remains as a sign that while Mike may have changed in some ways, he will never change in others.

Btw...you've been defending the Bengals not having one for just as long as I've been ripping them for it. 

I will defend a business owner spending HIS MONEY! Fans want a practice bubble so bad and think that is the ONE REASON no Super Bowl, I suggest they chip in and buy one to prove their argument.

Bubble schmubble ..remember when the one in Irving fell down and a few people were injured?  I lived right down the street from it at the time. People were acting as if the entire team had been killed in one fell swoop.

(03-27-2017, 11:25 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Even if they did, teams get loans all the time for bonuses and huge contracts. A bonus can be pro rated over the ife of a contract so paying the player 100% upfront for a 5 year contract, they just get a 5 year loan.

Signing bonuses are required to be paid from cash reserves and are prohibited from being leveraged.  So there are no loans on contracts.

(03-28-2017, 12:12 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: I would actually be very shocked if the Bengals have less than $100 million in cash.  Mike Brown has owned this team for over 20 years, there's no way he didn't make (and stash) $5 million per year.

As stated earlier in the thread, MB purchased the remaining shares that were not in the family just a few years ago in cash, so I'm sure that severely reduced his assets.

(03-28-2017, 12:18 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I was saying cash strapped teams do just that, they do take out loans for huge bonuses. They do it not because they want to pay interest, but because they don't in some cases have 20 million dollars laying around.

I also stated I did not feel the Bengals had cash issues a couple of times in this thread. But, 31 other teams and always someone who does not manage money as well as others.

They cannot leverage contracts.  Additionally ownership is required to maintain a very conservative debt ratio by league rules.

(03-31-2017, 11:02 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I have no idea what Mike's motivations are for keeping a small personnel department and scouting staff, and not building a practice facility. My educated guess (based on tidbits I've read) is that he's stubbornly old school when it comes to players practicing in elements. Money could be a factor - and let's be honest - if it is, it's not like any of us will ever know. That's just not something he'd admit to. Same deal with the small personnel and scouting staffs.

I wasn't singling you out with the "excuses" remark, Jim. I just feel there's some folks on here who will take what you said and run with it, using it as an excuse for how Mike runs things.

As for the size of the staffs, there is a mind set that too many cooks in the kitchen is counter productive.  I have heard Brown make enough public statements on the issue to believe that is his opinion on the matter.  If Mike's ideology it to streamline things with direct input of trusted sources as opposed to a plethora of people providing a possible excess of opinions, that is his prerogative as owner.

(04-02-2017, 09:05 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I will defend a business owner spending HIS MONEY! Fans want a practice bubble so bad and think that is the ONE REASON no Super Bowl, I suggest they chip in and buy one to prove their argument.

You always start out saying it's not important, then when I show you it's important (to Marvin and players...not just fans), you just roll with "it's his money".

Yeah, it's definitely his business/money, and I will always defend the right of customers to complain about the product. 

(04-02-2017, 12:29 PM)jfkbengals Wrote:
Signing bonuses are required to be paid from cash reserves and are prohibited from being leveraged.  So there are no loans on contracts.



As stated earlier in the thread, MB purchased the remaining shares that were not in the family just a few years ago in cash, so I'm sure that severely reduced his assets.



They cannot leverage contracts.  Additionally ownership is required to maintain a very conservative debt ratio by league rules.



As for the size of the staffs, there is a mind set that too many cooks in the kitchen is counter productive.  I have heard Brown make enough public statements on the issue to believe that is his opinion on the matter.  If Mike's ideology it to streamline things with direct input of trusted sources as opposed to a plethora of people providing a possible excess of opinions, that is his prerogative as owner.

I am not an accountant or an attorney so don't know the legal interpretation nor the accounting methods used. Help me understand how the Pats can give Brady a 28 million signing bonus in year one 14 million and  in year 2 million again, spread it (leverage it) over the life of the contract, but in your scenario not count it against debt? I am just trying to understand it because it seems very cloudy to me, but again no expert. 

(04-02-2017, 12:29 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: As for the size of the staffs, there is a mind set that too many cooks in the kitchen is counter productive.  I have heard Brown make enough public statements on the issue to believe that is his opinion on the matter.  If Mike's ideology it to streamline things with direct input of trusted sources as opposed to a plethora of people providing a possible excess of opinions, that is his prerogative as owner.

Lol thanks for clearing that up. 

I get that Mike can do what he wants as owner of the team. I've been all too aware of that for 25 years now. I just have to wonder if the fact that Mike Brown runs this team a little "differently" has something to do with why this team hasn't won a playoff game since he took over. The team with the smallest personnel department and scouting staff...and no practice facility...also happens to be the one rocking a historical streak of playoff ineptitude. 

I'm sure it's total coincidence though. Bad luck or something.

(04-02-2017, 12:32 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: You always start out saying it's not important, then when I show you it's important (to Marvin and players...not just fans), you just roll with "it's his money".

Yeah, it's definitely his business/money, and I will always defend the right of customers to complain about the product. 

Fair enough, we are both consistent in our disagreement.

There is no way anyone can defend this organization not having a indoor facility.

@ShakeNBlake - I just feel there's some folks on here who will take what you said and run with it, using it as an excuse for how Mike runs things.

Whit and DreKirk have complained in the past. I only know because I've posted the links in past debates on the subject. 

I got ya. While my job is to, technically, be an authority on the Bengals (and I feel I am concerning the current club) I am not afraid to say I don’t know it all and I definitely can get things wrong (though I think my track record is pretty good).

Whit/Dre and pulling up the old bubble stories: That’s valid and they said what they said. I guess perhaps it’s because in 2015 they were trying to get homefield advantage and last year, well, was last year. Perhaps if they were another 10-win wildcard team having to go to Miami and it was a 10-degree snowy stretch in Cincy it may come up again.

@bengalfan74
Great research!

Time for my opinion on the thought on an indoor practice “facility.” Let’s toss aside money.

As someone who has been around the club for three years now, there are some logistical issues with that. They have three, 100-yard fields next to PBS. Should they do an indoor facility there, the right way (i.e. permanent) – you’re probably down to a single 100 yard field with maybe some side space for rehabbing guys? They use all of those fields for practice, every day.

So…when it’s September / October an 55 degrees in November…where are they practicing?

The Packers, the only other team I covered, also has three, 100-yard fields – it’s just that one of them is the Hutson Center and it’s enclosed.

That permanent structure on that site means you’re heading elsewhere for training camp again.

Or, you’re talking about the team moving it’s whole base of operations to a separate facility in … where? NKY? Out in the northern burbs? The club spent millions (yes, the club) on its new indoor workout space, 20-yard field and cafeteria. Now you’re pulling your guys away from all that.

Look – I get it. Some players complain. It would look like the Bengals are “keeping up” with the rest of the league. But they would have to totally change their training camp and day-to-day routines in 2017 – which would include more bus rides.

If you want a real solution – that concrete factory and parking lot on the river front across from PBS would likely have to get bought out and all re-done to help make an indoor facility happen.

(04-02-2017, 06:01 PM)jowczarski Wrote: @ShakeNBlake - I just feel there's some folks on here who will take what you said and run with it, using it as an excuse for how Mike runs things.

Whit and DreKirk have complained in the past. I only know because I've posted the links in past debates on the subject. 

I got ya. While my job is to, technically, be an authority on the Bengals (and I feel I am concerning the current club) I am not afraid to say I don’t know it all and I definitely can get things wrong (though I think my track record is pretty good).

Whit/Dre and pulling up the old bubble stories: That’s valid and they said what they said. I guess perhaps it’s because in 2015 they were trying to get homefield advantage and last year, well, was last year. Perhaps if they were another 10-win wildcard team having to go to Miami and it was a 10-degree snowy stretch in Cincy it may come up again.

@bengalfan74
Great research!

Time for my opinion on the thought on an indoor practice “facility.” Let’s toss aside money.

As someone who has been around the club for three years now, there are some logistical issues with that. They have three, 100-yard fields next to PBS. Should they do an indoor facility there, the right way (i.e. permanent)  – you’re probably down to a single 100 yard field with maybe some side space for rehabbing guys? They use all of those fields for practice, every day.

So…when it’s September / October an 55 degrees in November…where are they practicing?

The Packers, the only other team I covered, also has three, 100-yard fields – it’s just that one of them is the Hutson Center and it’s enclosed.

That permanent structure on that site means you’re heading elsewhere for training camp again.

Or, you’re talking about the team moving it’s whole base of operations to a separate facility in … where? NKY? Out in the northern burbs? The club spent millions (yes, the club) on its new indoor workout space, 20-yard field and cafeteria. Now you’re pulling your guys away from all that.

Look – I get it. Some players complain. It would look like the Bengals are “keeping up” with the rest of the league. But they would have to totally change their training camp and day-to-day routines in 2017 – which would include more bus rides.

If you want a real solution – that concrete factory and parking lot on the river front across from PBS would likely have to get bought out and all re-done to help make an indoor facility happen.

You are impressive. This is the behind the scenes facts we never knew. 

TY

(04-02-2017, 01:54 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I don't BS:

https://m.bengals.com/news/article-1/Notes-Playing-to-win-Changes-bubble-Nugent-full-go-Geno-loses-sack/04419efd-e5c2-4b02-bcce-4a070e2384d0


They have practiced outdoors. Before playoffs games in fact:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/sports/football/bengals-using-bubble-avoid-trouble/G5F6nobXsae1uupUJTJ8mO/



The point of my argument has never been whether or not the Bengals use UC's facility. They do...although I imagine it's much more difficult to arrange everything at UC or the soccer complex than it would be to have their own facility with their own weight room etc in the complex ala the other 31 NFL teams and most college ones.

My point has always been that they shouldn't have to clear things with UC or plan ahead of time to use a college teams complex. It's also Mike Brown's attitude towards the whole issue. We have players getting numb toes, getting sick, and slipping on ice before a playoff game...and Mike is somehow okay with that ever happening.

Marv thought enough of the whole practice facility issue that it was said it was one of the things he held out for in 2011. Mike seemed to compromise on the issue, and Hobson put up an article that suggested one was in the works. Six years later and still no word. Instead it remains as a sign that while Mike may have changed in some ways, he will never change in others.

Btw...you've been defending the Bengals not having one for just as long as I've been ripping them for it. 

The age old debate.  Somehow we are supposed to believe that Mike Brown knows more than all the other NFL teams, most colleges, and a growing number of high school programs.

It is getting more and more difficult to root for this team...

Fair enough, Jim. I realize it's not as simple as snapping a finger and getting it done, but I'd feel better about the situation if I even felt like Mike Brown were trying or considered it a real issue. I don't think he does...at least based on action (lack of) and past statements he's made on the issue.

This is something they hinted was imminent exactly 6 years ago, but Mike certainly seemed luke warm to it compared to Marvin, who was apparently the one pushing hardest. Maybe they all just concluded they were fine using UC's bubble, but it's not like we hear much about it.

Here's an article from 4/22/2011 that talks about the Bengals working towards building a facility:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/22/mike-brown-finally-may-be-building-an-indoor-practice-facility

Mike Florio Wrote:For years, Bengals owner Mike Brown has resisted the notion of building an indoor practice facility.  The issue nearly caused coach Marvin Lewis to resist the opportunity to stay with the team.

Joe Reedy of the Cincinnati Enquirer reports that Brown could be breaking down and breaking out the wallet for an indoor venue.  Reedy writes that the team is “continuing preliminary assessments” toward that end, and that the team would fully fund the project.

“Marvin has a desire to have a practice facility,” Brown said when Lewis agreed to a new two-year contract in January, when he was a coaching free agent.  “I have a desire, but probably not as keen. That doesn’t mean I don’t have a desire to do it.”

He should have a desire to do it.  An indoor practice facility is one of those things that can help a team improve, allowing practice to continue during thunderstorms or heavy snow.  It also could be a factor in the decision-making processes of free agents.

We can’t imagine many players spurning the Bengals because they don’t have an indoor practice facility, but the absence of an indoor practice facility is a tangible item to which a free agent could point when deciding to point his search for a new team in a different direction because he senses that the Bengals perhaps don’t “get it.”

And that could be one of the reasons why the Bengals so often have to rely on signing talented players with off-field concerns, whose options are playing for an NFL team with no indoor practice facility — or playing for a CFL team that has one.

Interesting. I'm sure Marvin still wants it. Not sure where that "movement" towards one went when the team redid a bunch of the interior training elements inside PBS (maybe that was the trade off to some degree). Next time I get a chance to run it by someone, I will.

But the reality of it at this point would be a multi-million investment away from PBS and, if it's done right, IMO, moving the entire team's base of operations out of the stadium the people paid for it to be.

It doesn't make much sense to me for them to build, say, a single $25 million permanent dome somewhere in NKY they use a few times a winter and have to bus to and from.

(04-02-2017, 08:18 PM)jowczarski Wrote: Interesting. I'm sure Marvin still wants it. Not sure where that "movement" towards one went when the team redid a bunch of the interior training elements inside PBS (maybe that was the trade off to some degree). Next time I get a chance to run it by someone, I will.

But the reality of it at this point would be a multi-million investment away from PBS and, if it's done right, IMO, moving the entire team's base of operations out of the stadium the people paid for it to be.

It doesn't make much sense to me for them to build, say, a single $25 million permanent dome somewhere in NKY they use a few times a winter and have to bus to and from.

I think the bigger mistake was not building PBS with a retractable roof. MB could be happy playing outdoors majority of the time, could be closed for bad weather practices and could be used year round to host things like college BB tourneys and concerts. I would hope this would be a consideration for any future football stadiums to replace PBS in the future.