Report: NFL and NFLPA could reach deal on new CBA by end of 2019 season

luuked said:

Why though ?

The best team of the regular season gets a week off for having the best record. That is well deserved and correctly puts a bigger reward for regular season excellence.

Exactly why should the second best team get a BYE ? Apart from "because we are used to it".

Click to expand...

I wouldn’t actually have a huge issue with only the #1 team getting a bye if the league MUST have more playoff teams (they could add 3rd WC just by taking away the #2 bye) but it also means more 7-9 win teams in the playoffs. But, devils advocate, but 1) because the schedules of NFL teams can be seriously imbalanced, and 2) to maintain purpose for late season competition at the top of the bracket, are actual good reason to keep the #2 bye. If you pretty much know you’re the #2 after game 13 or 14 (of 17) then what do you do with those remaining games?

I guess I don’t feel like the NFL playoff and scheduling format is broke, so why fix it? More games and more money is the actual answer to that, but for example MLB having reworked their format is HORRIBLE to me to the point that I find the sport harder to care about in the regular season and harder to watch in the postseason. Simpler would be better, just going back to 2 leagues with 2 divisions, ALCS, NLCS, WS. Make the 162 matter more again.

I'm all for adding more playoffs teams...folks, there's going to come a time when Brady's gone, Belickicks gone and the Pats aren't starting w at least 5 wins from the division. I prefer to have meaningful games in December...

FCB02062 said:

I'm all for adding more playoffs teams...folks, there's going to come a time when Brady's gone, Belickicks gone and the Pats aren't starting w at least 5 wins from the division. I prefer to have meaningful games in December...

Click to expand...

Well, Ian is going to have to shut this site down after TB and BB retire. Why? Because there are a lot of posters who whine and complain about 90% of the time NOW. This place will be a goddang health hazard with all the heart attacks and strokes in the GDT when they retire. Going to lose half the fan base to early demise and all the bandwagoners.

Bet they'll trade the longer season for a bigger cap. This will be good for the owners, DeMaurice Smith's wallet, and a handful of superstars. It'll be bad for everyone else - the workaday players, the pre-1993 pensioners, fans, etc. Handshake agreements between ownership and union bureaucrats to denude any potential labor militarism that could result in real change. Smith sitting there and pleading, "We have to get this done before my guys threaten to strike." Classic union ****, man.

DarrylS said:

If you add the practice squad that would be 61... which has been my contention. To "protect teams from playing guys who should sit out" doesn't make that much sense either..

As I have always felt that the NFL injury list should reflect what they do in the other major sports, if they heal and are ready to play again let them come back. If 3 important players get hurt in the first game of the season and all three recover by game #7 all should be allowed to come back.. they are getting paid anyway.

This whole system of 46 dressed and the injured lists are archaic and need updating..

Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree with this. It will never happen. "This is the way it's done because it's the way we've always done it."

Clonamery said:

Well, Ian is going to have to shut this site down after TB and BB retire. Why? Because there are a lot of posters who whine and complain about 90% of the time NOW. This place will be a goddang health hazard with all the heart attacks and strokes in the GDT when they retire. Going to lose half the fan base to early demise and all the bandwagoners.

Click to expand...

Don't forget about Stidham and what we've been hearing about Steve Belichick.

Clonamery said:

Well, Ian is going to have to shut this site down after TB and BB retire. Why? Because there are a lot of posters who whine and complain about 90% of the time NOW. This place will be a goddang health hazard with all the heart attacks and strokes in the GDT when they retire. Going to lose half the fan base to early demise and all the bandwagoners.

Click to expand...

I have to imagine you knew exactly who you were replying to.

Clonamery said:

Well, Ian is going to have to shut this site down after TB and BB retire. Why? Because there are a lot of posters who whine and complain about 90% of the time NOW. This place will be a goddang health hazard with all the heart attacks and strokes in the GDT when they retire. Going to lose half the fan base to early demise and all the bandwagoners.

Click to expand...

Amen! The GDT is toxic enough when things are going reasonably well. Going into it I expected a Pats win in a hard fought game against the Ravens and as such I decided to avoid the GDT and post game thread for the sake of my sanity. There's a huge portion of this fanbase that in a trainwreck fashion would have been interesting to watch during the death throes of the Sullivans and the Kiam era except we both know they weren't around to see even if we'd had a way to. Remember when 8-8 was something we'd have celebrated? You can bet they don't and won't be here long after a season or two of that or worse eventually comes along.

I'd rather have a 17 game season than expand the playoffs, though neither idea seems like a good one. It seems like the owners have forgotten that the reason the NFL regulars season is so compelling is because EVERY game is so important. It seems like they are hell bent on trying to make it LESS compelling.

I'd be OK with only one team getting a by week

I think anyone should be allowed to come back after going on IR for a minimum of 8 games

I was surprised that there was NO mention of a potential adjustment of the CBD policy.

Also no mention of any methods to help the league's "middle class". It seems they will keep the system that mirrors American society, where the current pay situation favors the few over the many.

I happen to like the idea of having the option of keeping your first round picks a fifth year. The NBA is the worst. You draft an 18 or 19 year old KID, watch him develop for 4 years into a capable basketball player for someone else's team. Those kids are very talented players, but most aren't ready to be impact players. It usually takes them 3 or 4 years to develop. Years of development that were previously done in college. I don't want the NFL to turn into that.

My interest in the NFL has been waning since deflategate. I watched about 20 minutes of football this past week. I rarely watch any game other than the Patriots. I'll still watch the Pats after Brady leaves. Aren't you curious to see how they do?

I'll believe it when I see it, and I wish they would leave the games and playoff schedule alone. They are already pushing the amount of games the players can handle.

maust1013 said:

Amen! The GDT is toxic enough when things are going reasonably well. Going into it I expected a Pats win in a hard fought game against the Ravens and as such I decided to avoid the GDT and post game thread for the sake of my sanity. There's a huge portion of this fanbase that in a trainwreck fashion would have been interesting to watch during the death throes of the Sullivans and the Kiam era except we both know they weren't around to see even if we'd had a way to. Remember when 8-8 was something we'd have celebrated? You can bet they don't and won't be here long after a season or two of that or worse eventually comes along.

Click to expand...

I think the word "reasonably" could be changed to HISTORICALLY. Brady is 139-21-0 at home. That is insane. And yet, the GDT...

primetime said:

Bet they'll trade the longer season for a bigger cap. This will be good for the owners, DeMaurice Smith's wallet, and a handful of superstars. It'll be bad for everyone else - the workaday players, the pre-1993 pensioners, fans, etc. Handshake agreements between ownership and union bureaucrats to denude any potential labor militarism that could result in real change. Smith sitting there and pleading, "We have to get this done before my guys threaten to strike." Classic union ****, man.

Click to expand...

Time to send in the Communist agitators?

KontradictioN said:

Time to send in the Communist agitators?

Click to expand...

Send in the Wobblies bruh

primetime said:

Bet they'll trade the longer season for a bigger cap. This will be good for the owners, DeMaurice Smith's wallet, and a handful of superstars. It'll be bad for everyone else - the workaday players, the pre-1993 pensioners, fans, etc. Handshake agreements between ownership and union bureaucrats to denude any potential labor militarism that could result in real change. Smith sitting there and pleading, "We have to get this done before my guys threaten to strike." Classic union ****, man.

Click to expand...

Wouldn’t it defeat the owners purpose to gain more revenue with one extra game but give it back by raising the cap?
The players already get about of the additional revenue so it’s equally beneficial financially to add a game.

Ring 6 said:

Wouldn’t it defeat the owners purpose to gain more revenue with one extra game but give it back by raising the cap?
The players already get about of the additional revenue so it’s equally beneficial financially to add a game.

Click to expand...

NFL contracts are yearly salaries, not per game, so this would decrease the per-game remuneration for players and expose them to a greater risk of injury. Adding an additional game with no concessions on money available for contracts would be a huge loss for labor.

primetime said:

NFL contracts are yearly salaries, not per game, so this would decrease the per-game remuneration for players and expose them to a greater risk of injury. Adding an additional game with no concessions on money available for contracts would be a huge loss for labor.

Click to expand...

The other side of it is that the players receive roughly 50% of the revenue so the cap and ultimately the players salaries (as new contracts are signed) increase accordingly. Adding the 17th game puts an additional chunk of revenue in the players pockets because that revenue added counts toward calculating the cap.
The entire player income will increase to be based on 17 games because they will get roughly half of the revenue generated by that 17th game.

Gronk said:

I guess I don’t feel like the NFL playoff and scheduling format is broke, so why fix it? More games and more money is the actual answer to that, but for example MLB having reworked their format is HORRIBLE to me to the point that I find the sport harder to care about in the regular season and harder to watch in the postseason. Simpler would be better, just going back to 2 leagues with 2 divisions, ALCS, NLCS, WS. Make the 162 matter more again.

Click to expand...

I am not arguing they should change anything at all. I am fine with the playoff format as it is. I was just asking what exactly makes the #2 seed so deserving of a BYE that it is something we REALLY need to keep.

Your argument that the team has nothing to play for is not necessarily correct because you still get potentially more home games than if you place #3.

Gronk said:

I wouldn’t actually have a huge issue with only the #1 team getting a bye if the league MUST have more playoff teams (they could add 3rd WC just by taking away the #2 bye) but it also means more 7-9 win teams in the playoffs. But, devils advocate, but 1) because the schedules of NFL teams can be seriously imbalanced, and 2) to maintain purpose for late season competition at the top of the bracket, are actual good reason to keep the #2 bye. If you pretty much know you’re the #2 after game 13 or 14 (of 17) then what do you do with those remaining games?

I guess I don’t feel like the NFL playoff and scheduling format is broke, so why fix it? More games and more money is the actual answer to that, but for example MLB having reworked their format is HORRIBLE to me to the point that I find the sport harder to care about in the regular season and harder to watch in the postseason. Simpler would be better, just going back to 2 leagues with 2 divisions, ALCS, NLCS, WS. Make the 162 matter more again.

Click to expand...

I'm definitely not for either idea (17 game regular season and/or 7 team playoff format), but I'm not sure the bolded statement is actually true. The only time 7-9 teams make the playoffs is when they win a mediocre to terrible division. As far as I can tell, the four division winners would still make it, and they'd add a 3rd wildcard, which would end having the best record possible for that slot.

Looking at recent history, the 7th spot would go to (I'm not bothering looking at tiebreakers for these):

2018: PIT at 9-6-1, MIN at 8-7-1.
2017: BAL at 9-7, DAL at 9-7.
2016: TEN at 9-7, TB at 9-7.
2015: NYJ at 10-6, Atl at 8-8.
2014: BUF at 9-7, PHI at 10-6.

Now, none of these are great teams by any stretch. Atlanta at 8-8 definitely doesn't deserve to be there IMO. But a 9-7 Giants team won the SB in 2011 (UGH) so it's hard for me to say those teams don't deserve a shot, given they'd have to win every game on the road to make it. Again, I don't like the idea, but I doubt there will ever be a year where the 3rd best non-division winner is under .500.

patfanken said:

Also no mention of any methods to help the league's "middle class". It seems they will keep the system that mirrors American society, where the current pay situation favors the few over the many.

Click to expand...

I mean apart from creating cap incentives there really is not much you can do about it. Rookie contracts remain a bargain because of their effect on the cap and will automatically squeeze the middle class out.

Before they start Crossing T's and Dotting I's, they need to make Rules and Regulations and Monetary Penalties/Suspensions set for ALL Players and not just hand them out as they see fit.
NFLPA & nfl* should have written in stone.

goondell* SHOULD NOT HAVE FULL POWER to pick and choose who he*/nfl* sees fit to warrant an erratic Kangaroo Court System (See wells* and his report*).