What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

New CBA may be invalid (2 Viewers)

I honestly don't see the players approving a 17-game schedule.  For one, it makes no sense.  Yeah, I know there's three just three preseason games.  But, I don't see the players putting their bodies through another game during the regular season just to add one more game.  If the league can eliminate the 17th game, I'd be happy.  But, if you're going to add any more games to the regular-season schedule, you might as well just expand the entire league!  And do I see that happening?  NO WAY!!!

 
I honestly don't see the players approving a 17-game schedule.  For one, it makes no sense.  Yeah, I know there's three just three preseason games.  But, I don't see the players putting their bodies through another game during the regular season just to add one more game.  If the league can eliminate the 17th game, I'd be happy.  But, if you're going to add any more games to the regular-season schedule, you might as well just expand the entire league!  And do I see that happening?  NO WAY!!!
I think you are correct that they won’t approve it and if JJ Watt has any say they won’t.

JJ Watt says a “hard no” on the new CBA the owners approved

 
I think the players will approve the 17 game schedule but they want to maximize it as a bargaining chip so they have to act like they hate the idea.

 
The owners seem to be rushing, I'm sure there's a reason. If the players are smart they'll take advantage.

 
The owners seem to be rushing, I'm sure there's a reason. If the players are smart they'll take advantage.
Owners want this thing locked down before they need to start negotiating the next TV deal.  Any concern of a labor stoppage would be a huge leverage point for the TV networks.

 
Link

A vote on the proposed collective bargaining agreement will go to the full membership of the NFL Players Association, even if player reps vote not to recommend approval, sources told ESPN's Dan Graziano on Friday.

A simple majority would be required to approve it. Anyone who paid NFLPA dues during the 2019-20 league year is eligible to vote, which is an estimated 2,100 players.

The NFLPA's executive council voted 6-5 not to recommend the proposal, as first reported by the NFL Network and confirmed by ESPN. But sources said the originally scheduled conference call with the player reps was proceeding as scheduled at 1 p.m. ET on Friday and that it remained possible that a body of 32 players still could vote to recommend the deal to the full membership.

 
The franchise tag is still included in there. I know, sort of obnoxious. I have to think the PA will not allow it. I've read the NFL will use the tag as a bargaining chip so they look like they're compromising. It's why the PA shouldn't even start negotiating a stupid offer. 

 
The NFL can suck a big fat one. I don't ever want to hear one more word from them that they care about player safety.

The owners are just a bunch of greedy sack suckers that are only trying to extricate every last penny from every person on the planet. 

And in the meantime, a guy like me can't even buy a face value ticket to a game because those wanks allow brokers to buy up every seat for the whole season within 2 seconds of them putting tickets on sale on the public.

 
Didn't see anything about bye weeks. 1 or 2? It should be 2 for obvious reasons. A bye week on week 4 is far worse to have than a bye week later on. 1 more week of big revenue.

 
The NFL can suck a big fat one. I don't ever want to hear one more word from them that they care about player safety.
This just one of many talking points for Richard Sherman, as if he needs another thing to complain about. The whole premise here is a bit silly. So, adding another game means owners don't care about player safety? Applying that logic, the NFL should be reducing the number of games. If they really cared about player safety they'd reduce the games to 5 or 6, or better yet just not even have games. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The NFL can suck a big fat one. I don't ever want to hear one more word from them that they care about player safety.

The owners are just a bunch of greedy sack suckers that are only trying to extricate every last penny from every person on the planet. 

And in the meantime, a guy like me can't even buy a face value ticket to a game because those wanks allow brokers to buy up every seat for the whole season within 2 seconds of them putting tickets on sale on the public.
Don't

 
As I posted in the other CBA thread, the owners will only pay players a max of $250K to play in a 17th game. With some players averaging $2M a game, not sure why the owners can’t just give the players one more game check at their regular pay rate. 

 
Can't be bothered to read - is marijuana still illegal or can we accept that over half of America can get a green card just by asking for one now?

 
Can't be bothered to read - is marijuana still illegal or can we accept that over half of America can get a green card just by asking for one now?
I think the limit for failure would go up and no more suspensions for weed alone. Regardless, this cba won’t pass. Exposure for a 17th game for the stars of the league and not even being compensated appropriately for it? We’d end up with multiple weeks a year where the starters take a siesta instead of playing 

 
As I posted in the other CBA thread, the owners will only pay players a max of $250K to play in a 17th game. With some players averaging $2M a game, not sure why the owners can’t just give the players one more game check at their regular pay rate. 
If I were in charge of the PA, I wouldn't even make a counter offer. The NFL would have to do better before we could even start discussing.

 
I wouldn't be surprised to see them go to 17 games, add a second bye week, and cut to two preseason games now. Start the preseason games two weeks later and keep week one of the regular season on the same starting weekend that it is now (right after Labor Day).

Then, have the Super Bowl two weeks later that it is now, so on the third weekend in February (President's Day weekend) when most people are already off on Monday to help with the Super Bowl "hangovers".

After all, the whole month of February is "sweeps" month, so to the networks, it wouldn't matter when the Super Bowl is as long as it is still in February. BUT... you would also have the added benefit of the high ratings from two extra playoff weeks during sweeps month. The networks would love that!

 
I wonder if two preseason games would lead to better quality football games and less penalties for the first few weeks of the regular season. Hahahahaha of course not it will be terrible but at least it's football.

 
I wouldn't be surprised to see them go to 17 games, add a second bye week, and cut to two preseason games now. Start the preseason games two weeks later and keep week one of the regular season on the same starting weekend that it is now (right after Labor Day).

Then, have the Super Bowl two weeks later that it is now, so on the third weekend in February (President's Day weekend) when most people are already off on Monday to help with the Super Bowl "hangovers".

After all, the whole month of February is "sweeps" month, so to the networks, it wouldn't matter when the Super Bowl is as long as it is still in February. BUT... you would also have the added benefit of the high ratings from two extra playoff weeks during sweeps month. The networks would love that!
Teams in the North without domes would likely struggle a bit with regular season games running into January. If you’re a really good team, you’ll still sell seats. If you’re not a great team, good luck getting anyone to your stadium for a meaningless regular season game in January in Cleveland.

 
If they did this right, they can make a reasonable argument that it helps player safety. These changes are part of the new proposed CBA:

  1. Remove 1 preseason game and add 1 regular season game.
  2. Increase roster size by 2 and practice squad size by 2.
  3. Reduce padded practices.
  4. Relax rules on MJ, so players can use it to help with pain and stress relief.
They could also:

  1. Add a second bye week, so 19 weeks to play 17 games.
  2. Schedule all first bye weeks in weeks 6-9. Schedule all second bye weeks in weeks 12-15. Stagger them 6 weeks apart (e.g., team with by in week 6 has bye in week 12, etc.). No team would have to play more than 8 straight regular season weeks at any point.
  3. Schedule as many Thursday nights as possible such that participating teams are coming off bye weeks.
  4. Eliminate gameday inactives and make entire roster eligible to play on gameday.
I think all of that collectively would be safer. To me, this is really going to come down to money, as it always does.

  1. The 17th game and extra playoff games will drive revenue from media contracts higher than under the current system. The players get 48.5% of that.
  2. It has been reported the extra games would add $5B over 10 years... so $500M/year = $15.6M per team. The players would get 48.5% of that, and about 20% is for benefits. So about $6M in additional salary for the roster, on average. Of course, it would start smaller and grow over time, so not much additional salary up front.
  3. The additional roster and practice squad spots mean more players get paid.
  4. Minimum salaries will rise significantly. (Significant to those making minimum salaries.)
  5. Benefits will improve. Like minimum salaries, this may matter more to those on the lower end of the pay spectrum.
Players with star level contracts won't be helped as much (e.g., JJ Watt) financially. But there are more voting members in the NFLPA with minimum level contracts than with star level contracts. I fully expect them to vote to approve.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
 Not sure how taking away a preseason game when hardly any regulars play and adding a regular season game is a boon for player safety. Expanding the game day roster also won’t decrease the workload of full timers. 

Financially, if they added a game at the same rate of pay as the other 16 games, it might’ve been fair. But not at a max of $250K. 

There are workarounds and things that could be negotiated, but I doubt the owners will move much from what they offered. It doesn’t help the NFLPA is one of the weakest player associations in sports. Football has the longest way to go in terms of getting their players in a good place. 

 
 Not sure how taking away a preseason game when hardly any regulars play and adding a regular season game is a boon for player safety.
I said the combination of several things could contribute to an improvement to player safety. I literally listed 8 elements and also opened with "if they did this right."

Expanding the game day roster also won’t decrease the workload of full timers.
It would very likely spread out special teams snaps at minimum. It would mean that fewer players have to play special teams in addition to offense/defense. It is perfectly reasonable to characterize it as a positive for player safety, even if the benefit is small.

 
One major negative impact of the 17 game regular season will be its inflationary effect on the numbers of the game and the degrading of historical records.

At a single season level, we will have bigger numbers all round and it will be easier for players to reach the traditional benchmarks of success such as 1000 yards rushing, or 4000 yards passing.

At a multi-season level, it will result in bigger career numbers which could mean players whose careers start post-17 games to challenge all-time records like Rice's receiving yards.

It will essentially devalue the achievements of all the players who achieved greatness with 16 games and create a new "post-17" asterisk to be added to new records achieved. 

It will create inconsistencies in career numbers for players whose careers span both 16 and 17 games. For example, if Michael Thomas exceeds his record number of catches achieved this year in a 17 game regular season by a small margin, is that a greater or lesser achievement than this year's?

If a future post-17 game season DE breaks Strahan's record by a single sack, does it really count? After all, if Strahan had had 17 games he likely would have added to his record.

All this will pose considerable problems for Hall of Fame voters. They will need to factor in the 17 game regular season numbers into their assessment of candidates from the two eras and you may need to use your calculator a lot. 

For example, a 5000 yard passing season in 16 games is 5312.5 yards in 17 games. If someone passes for 5300 yards in 17 games, is that a better or worse achievement than 5000 yards in 16? They passed for more yards but the average per game is lower. Who did better? I think the 17 game regular season is a travesty 

 
As I posted in the other CBA thread, the owners will only pay players a max of $250K to play in a 17th game. With some players averaging $2M a game, not sure why the owners can’t just give the players one more game check at their regular pay rate. 
The $250K for the 17th game; would that only be for the players who currently have a contract?  For example, if a player had a 2021 salary (am I right in my belief that the 17 game schedule wouldn't go into effect in 2020, even if approved?) of $16M, he'd get 16 $1M game checks, then a $250K check for week 17.  But, if the CBA was approved, and a player was a FA who signed a $17M contract for 2020, he'd get 17 $1M game checks?

 
Bayhawks said:
The $250K for the 17th game; would that only be for the players who currently have a contract?  For example, if a player had a 2021 salary (am I right in my belief that the 17 game schedule wouldn't go into effect in 2020, even if approved?) of $16M, he'd get 16 $1M game checks, then a $250K check for week 17.  But, if the CBA was approved, and a player was a FA who signed a $17M contract for 2020, he'd get 17 $1M game checks?
I believe this is correct.

 
Miro Z said:
One major negative impact of the 17 game regular season will be its inflationary effect on the numbers of the game and the degrading of historical records.

At a single season level, we will have bigger numbers all round and it will be easier for players to reach the traditional benchmarks of success such as 1000 yards rushing, or 4000 yards passing.

At a multi-season level, it will result in bigger career numbers which could mean players whose careers start post-17 games to challenge all-time records like Rice's receiving yards.

It will essentially devalue the achievements of all the players who achieved greatness with 16 games and create a new "post-17" asterisk to be added to new records achieved. 

It will create inconsistencies in career numbers for players whose careers span both 16 and 17 games. For example, if Michael Thomas exceeds his record number of catches achieved this year in a 17 game regular season by a small margin, is that a greater or lesser achievement than this year's?

If a future post-17 game season DE breaks Strahan's record by a single sack, does it really count? After all, if Strahan had had 17 games he likely would have added to his record.

All this will pose considerable problems for Hall of Fame voters. They will need to factor in the 17 game regular season numbers into their assessment of candidates from the two eras and you may need to use your calculator a lot. 

For example, a 5000 yard passing season in 16 games is 5312.5 yards in 17 games. If someone passes for 5300 yards in 17 games, is that a better or worse achievement than 5000 yards in 16? They passed for more yards but the average per game is lower. Who did better? I think the 17 game regular season is a travesty 
Two points:

-current players will play one more game each season but will generally play fewer seasons because financially they won't need to keep playing and from a health perspective, they won't want to

-Strahan's sack record is bogus anyway. Because of Brett Farve? No, because Reggie White had 21 sacks in 1987 in only 12 games due to the players strike. Is there an asterisk next to Strahan's record? No, and there shouldn't be. People are smart enough when comparing eras to know to factor in the difference in number of games played. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Miro Z said:
One major negative impact of the 17 game regular season will be its inflationary effect on the numbers of the game and the degrading of historical records.

At a single season level, we will have bigger numbers all round and it will be easier for players to reach the traditional benchmarks of success such as 1000 yards rushing, or 4000 yards passing.

At a multi-season level, it will result in bigger career numbers which could mean players whose careers start post-17 games to challenge all-time records like Rice's receiving yards.

It will essentially devalue the achievements of all the players who achieved greatness with 16 games and create a new "post-17" asterisk to be added to new records achieved. 

It will create inconsistencies in career numbers for players whose careers span both 16 and 17 games. For example, if Michael Thomas exceeds his record number of catches achieved this year in a 17 game regular season by a small margin, is that a greater or lesser achievement than this year's?

If a future post-17 game season DE breaks Strahan's record by a single sack, does it really count? After all, if Strahan had had 17 games he likely would have added to his record.

All this will pose considerable problems for Hall of Fame voters. They will need to factor in the 17 game regular season numbers into their assessment of candidates from the two eras and you may need to use your calculator a lot. 

For example, a 5000 yard passing season in 16 games is 5312.5 yards in 17 games. If someone passes for 5300 yards in 17 games, is that a better or worse achievement than 5000 yards in 16? They passed for more yards but the average per game is lower. Who did better? I think the 17 game regular season is a travesty 
This has been handled multiple times by every pro sport.  Not always well, but this is not the first time games have been added.

I don't think they should do away with more than one pre season game. Those aren't relevant for starters, but they can be big for fringe players.

 
This has been handled multiple times by every pro sport.  Not always well, but this is not the first time games have been added.

I don't think they should do away with more than one pre season game. Those aren't relevant for starters, but they can be big for fringe players.
Agree with this 100%. You hear so much made about the preseason games needing to be cut when in actuality the starters maybe play a full game combined between the 4 preseason games, so really what does cutting preseason games matter to them? You are totally correct in that they are more crucial for the fringe players trying to make the team. Having only 2 games to try and prove yourself would be difficult and also difficult for the staff to evaluate which fringe players to keep on the team. 

 
Per rotoworld -

Suspended DT David Irving said he's "in the reinstatement process right now."  "I’m sure y’all saw the NFL said they’re going to change the laws," Irving, 27, said in a pair of videos on Instagram Monday. "Everyone’s been DMing me, asking if I’m going to go back. Well, let’s just say I’m in the reinstatement process right now." Last we heard from Irving he was announcing he "quit" football all while smoking a blunt. He remains suspended indefinitely until further notice. 

Fwiw

 
New CBA is going to the players for a vote. Since it only requires majority and I’d argue the new CBA is good for middle to lower class NFL wage earners I think it has strong chance to pass.

Right now in terms of free agency,  if this passes, this really impacts the options Dallas and Tennessee will have to maintain control on some of their key players. 

 
This has been handled multiple times by every pro sport.  Not always well, but this is not the first time games have been added.

I don't think they should do away with more than one pre season game. Those aren't relevant for starters, but they can be big for fringe players.
Of course - the NFL itself increased its regular season from 14 to 16 games.

The fact that a precedent exists doesn't mean it's a good thing.

A 16 game regular season has worked extremely well for decades. Adding an extra game is going to create all kinds of issues, not least that half the league are going to have more home games than the other half.

 
Of course - the NFL itself increased its regular season from 14 to 16 games.

The fact that a precedent exists doesn't mean it's a good thing.

A 16 game regular season has worked extremely well for decades. Adding an extra game is going to create all kinds of issues, not least that half the league are going to have more home games than the other half.
Good or bad or indifferent is in the eye of the beholder. 

I don't know if it's part of the CBA, but each team could have a neutral field game every year.  Some international, but you could also have games like colts / Lions in Ann Arbor, eagles / Steelers at Beaver field, browns / Bengals in the horseshoe, falcons / Titans in Tuscaloosa, etc. 

Last year, 5 teams had fewer home games than other teams. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A 16 game regular season has worked extremely well for decades. Adding an extra game is going to create all kinds of issues, not least that half the league are going to have more home games than the other half.
Not sure if rumor or not, but I heard each team will have a neutral site game in addition to 8 home/away. That would solve that problem, but sounds like a scheduling nightmare.

Hoping there are two bye weeks to allow for the added playing time. Well rested, non injured players = better football

 
Of course - the NFL itself increased its regular season from 14 to 16 games.

The fact that a precedent exists doesn't mean it's a good thing.

A 16 game regular season has worked extremely well for decades. Adding an extra game is going to create all kinds of issues, not least that half the league are going to have more home games than the other half.
Adding an extra game also creates a 6% increase in regular season revenue, which is good for the owners and the players. As to the home game issue, If they don't do a neutral site game for every team, they will probably make the 17th game an interconference game, and one conference will host all the games one year and the other conference will host all the games the next year. Win/Loss records only matter at the conference level, so every team in the conference will play the same number of home games (8 games in one conference, 9 games in the other)

 
In this article they feel the new CBA will be passed by the players vote also in this article it goes into detail about a lot of the specifics that are in the new CBA. 
 

Link

 
Interesting that I don't see any mention of drug testing.  Has pot been eliminated?
Here is what I found about marijuana in the new CBA. It states the nfl will no longer suspend players that test positive for it and will lower the number of players that get tested. 
 

Link

 
Here is what I found about marijuana in the new CBA. It states the nfl will no longer suspend players that test positive for it and will lower the number of players that get tested. 
 

Link
Thanks, here's what was in the fact sheet

Changes to Drug Policy

  • Narrows the testing window of THC from four months to two weeks at the start of training camp
  • Reduces the penalties to players who test positive for THC, eliminating any game suspensions strictly for positive tests
  • Reduces the number of players subjected to testing for THC
  • Increases the nanogram limit from 35 to 150

 
Read on ESPN that they are not adding an extra bye week. I think that is pretty surprising. The league could sell it as being good for player health/safety and would also have an extra week of football to sell in their upcoming media deals.

 
Read on ESPN that they are not adding an extra bye week. I think that is pretty surprising. The league could sell it as being good for player health/safety and would also have an extra week of football to sell in their upcoming media deals.
I am sure that is intentional. You have to leave some things for the other side to bargain over that you are willing to give in to. 

 
I am sure that is intentional. You have to leave some things for the other side to bargain over that you are willing to give in to. 
This is not true.

There is no more bargaining unless the players vote not to accept the proposal. And I think it is a virtual lock to be approved, since it is so financially beneficial to the majority of NFL players.

 
This is not true.

There is no more bargaining unless the players vote not to accept the proposal. And I think it is a virtual lock to be approved, since it is so financially beneficial to the majority of NFL players.
How is there no bargaining? 

 
Read on ESPN that they are not adding an extra bye week. I think that is pretty surprising. The league could sell it as being good for player health/safety and would also have an extra week of football to sell in their upcoming media deals.
I was really disappointed to hear this but for selfish reasons, not player safety and really find it odd that a league that is trying to fill more content is not taking the extra bye week.

I've long stated if the league wants to fill more content don't air like 8-9 games at the same time slot  Sunday afternoon. I only have one set of eyeballs myself. In a 16 or 17 week season I just figured if you trim a little of those games each week that's the easiest way to build in extra content without needing to add more games.

 
And every NFL player I see posting on social media are saying to vote no. 
But are you only paying attention to the big name players? I believe this vote is going to pass myself because I think the majority of the league, which is mainly middle to lower class in the hierarchy, will vote yes. These are not the kind of players for the most part I think are going to take to social media to speak out against starts who oppose it.

 
But are you only paying attention to the big name players? I believe this vote is going to pass myself because I think the majority of the league, which is mainly middle to lower class in the hierarchy, will vote yes. These are not the kind of players for the most part I think are going to take to social media to speak out against starts who oppose it.
I agree with you but I also think those big name players have a lot of influence. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top