whole-show
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you are correct that they won’t approve it and if JJ Watt has any say they won’t.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!!!
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.The owners seem to be rushing, I'm sure there's a reason. If the players are smart they'll take advantage.
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.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.
Don'tThe 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.
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 playingCan'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?
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.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.
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.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 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."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.
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.Expanding the game day roster also won’t decrease the workload of full timers.
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?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.
I believe this is correct.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?
Two points: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.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
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.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.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.
Good or bad or indifferent is in the eye of the beholder.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.
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.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)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.
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.Interesting that I don't see any mention of drug testing. Has pot been eliminated?
Thanks, here's what was in the fact sheetHere 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
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
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.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.
This is not true.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.
How is there no bargaining?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.
Because there is an offer on the table. Can't make counters while that is the case.How is there no bargaining?
So the players could vote no and then start negotiating again?Because there is an offer on the table. Can't make counters while that is the case.
I would think so yes.So the players could vote no and then start negotiating again?
Ok, then it doesn't change my point at all. I don't think any reasonable person in a serious negotiation with this much at stake would actually put their best offer out the first time.I would think so yes.
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.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.
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.And every NFL player I see posting on social media are saying to vote no.
I agree with you but I also think those big name players have a lot of influence.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.