Apparent CBA progress... - New England Patriots Forums

AzPatsFan · 01-29-2006, 11:13 PM

It is great to hear that apparently sanity is breaking out on the CBA. There are several CBA related rules changes that I would like to see.

I wonder if the CBA will expand the teams size. Say instead of an active 45 they go to an active 47 or 48. That would allow all 22 starters to have a reserve and with the specialists included too; perhaps a third QB, RB or returner. if it went above 47...

Perhaps the PS expands by a similar couple of spots too.

It is apparent with the expansion to 4 preseason and 16 regular season matches, many teams are entering the playoffs pretty banged up.

I have always understood why a player IR'ed is done for the season; but that season is extended for the playoff participants for as many as four extra games. It seems to me that IR'ed people ought to be eligible for the next game after the regular season, as happens for all the teams who do NOT make the playoffs. Why discriminate against the playoff teams? it would make for better football in the posteason for the fans and that is what the NFL is merchandising too.

There is a defect in the NFL rules that effectively eliminates most trades; that would be pretty easy to correct with a CBA change. Unlike cuts, where unamortized bonuses can be distributed over two years, present trade rules require the unamortized bonus money to be be amortized in only one year. This in effect kills trades.

If they treated trades like cuts, and allowed two year amortization this would return the traede, hot stove trade talk, and also encourage player movement, which I would think should be encouraged. it makes it possible to build a team with yet another method.

You could even reward trades over pure cuts, by allowing three (or more)year amortization of bonuses.

Finally I would reallly like a method to prevent untried rookies from receiving great amounts of money before they have proved themselves in the NFL. We all have seen many high pick busts pocket millions, while 7th round surprises labor at near minimum money when they are producing on the field. Some sort of rookie pay scale is what is wanted, IMHO.

Do any of you agree or have other ideas to add. I'd like to have this hashed out by the fans and encourage a news representative to bring this to the attention of the league execs.

flutie2phelan · 01-29-2006, 11:49 PM

AZ, your posts make a lot of good sense. Therefore, i treat this one with the care it deserves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzPatsFan

....
I wonder if the CBA will expand the teams size. Say instead of an active 45 they go to an active 47 or 48. That would allow all 22 starters to have a reserve and with the specialists included too; perhaps a third QB, RB or returner. if it went above 47...

Perhaps the PS expands by a similar couple of spots too.

It has been the owners who insisted on restricting both roster and (originally) ps size. Cost containment, you know. Since the owners apparently will be conceding big player gains in the sal cap, i wouldn't expect them to concede roster size also.

It is apparent with the expansion to 4 preseason and 16 regular season matches, many teams are entering the playoffs pretty banged up.

I have always understood why a player IR'ed is done for the season; but that season is extended for the playoff participants for as many as four extra games. It seems to me that IR'ed people ought to be eligible for the next game after the regular season, as happens for all the teams who do NOT make the playoffs. Why discriminate against the playoff teams? it would make for better football in the posteason for the fans and that is what the NFL is merchandising too.

Any Pats fan can sympathize here. I think the league's motive is to eliminate IR as an additional tool of roster manipulation. Not sure how i'd prefer it to be.

There is a defect in the NFL rules that effectively eliminates most trades; that would be pretty easy to correct with a CBA change. Unlike cuts, where unamortized bonuses can be distributed over two years, present trade rules require the unamortized bonus money to be be amortized in only one year. This in effect kills trades.

If they treated trades like cuts, and allowed two year amortization this would return the traede, hot stove trade talk, and also encourage player movement, which I would think should be encouraged. it makes it possible to build a team with yet another method.

You could even reward trades over pure cuts, by allowing three (or more)year amortization of bonuses.

Sounds good to me.

Finally I would reallly like a method to prevent untried rookies from receiving great amounts of money before they have proved themselves in the NFL. We all have seen many high pick busts pocket millions, while 7th round surprises labor at near minimum money when they are producing on the field. Some sort of rookie pay scale is what is wanted, IMHO.

Since this would be so good for the established players ... isn't it amazing? ... that reality is otherwise. The players THEMSELVES should be deluging the NFLPA, demanding this most important provision!

Do any of you agree or have other ideas to add. I'd like to have this hashed out by the fans and encourage a news representative to bring this to the attention of the league execs.

patsox23 · 01-30-2006, 12:35 AM

agree with pretty much all points in the original post. Good job.