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

[PatsFanSince74]

No, it wouldn’t. It would completely ruin the Super Bowl and football is way too punishing a sport for that. Especially on that big of a stage where guys are going full tilt, all the time. That’s a terrible idea.

I can't decide if he wasn't being sarcastic...

 

[PatsFanSince74]

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.

In other words, you're saying that we'll be like the Jests' site?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I'm mainly* in the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" camp. But when the chance to make more money is dangled in front of owners and players, I could see them ****ing up a good thing.

*I say "mainly" because, other posters could well be right when they observe that the departures of BB and TB12 will change things. If the Pats go back to the middle of the pack, then why not have more chances for my team to get into the playoffs, even if the outcome is predetermined? If the goal of the league becomes making a lot more money for a bunch of so-so teams, then who cares how many games they play?

Come to think of it, "Parity" was the goal back in 1993 with the new FA and Cap rules. Owners were supposed to be able to tell their fan bases and local media, "Don't be mad or disappointed when we stink. With parity, nobody can ever again be like the Packers or Cowboys or Steelers or Niners and go to more than one Super Bowl ever 10 or 15 years."

Then Kraft, BB and TB came along and spoiled the "Parity Party." So, they tried to rig the game against a Brady offense or a BB Defense with rule changes, but they weren't enough. So now they'll just try to turn the whole league into a greedy race to the bottom at last!

 

[primetime]

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.

Oh yeah, that's a fair point.

 

[festy1986]

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".

Because the patriots dont win superbowls without two weeks off.

Also because they already get a bye and it works just fine.

If you're all for big NFL that's cool but personally I enjoy the product as is and am not begging for more.

 

[Gronk]

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.

I could have phrased that bolded part better - I meant more teams with 7, 8, or 9 wins would make it. No necessarily just 7-9, that would remain rare, because mathematically it’d almost have to be a division winner, not a WC team.

 

[luuked]

Because the patriots dont win superbowls without two weeks off.

Who cares ? Last year everyone was like "no change to win in Arrowhead". Ultimately, this is not about the Patriots this is about the CBA.

Also because they already get a bye and it works just fine.

If you're all for big NFL that's cool but personally I enjoy the product as is and am not begging for more.

Being for or against a change has absolutely nothing to do with my question. Which you could not answer so you just moved the goalposts to "uh uh the Pats need it" (which is entirely irrelevant) and "i dont need change" (which nobody cares about because you are not the one negotiating the CBA).

IF there is change there is absolutely zero reason why the #2 seeds deserve a BYE. They haven't done anything special and for being the second best team in the conference they are already getting 2 home games under the new format.

And in case you still haven't figured it out I am not a fan of adding one game as I have said multiple times already.

 

[festy1986]

Who cares ? Last year everyone was like "no change to win in Arrowhead". Ultimately, this is not about the Patriots this is about the CBA.



Being for or against a change has absolutely nothing to do with my question. Which you could not answer so you just moved the goalposts to "uh uh the Pats need it" (which is entirely irrelevant) and "i dont need change" (which nobody cares about because you are not the one negotiating the CBA).

IF there is change there is absolutely zero reason why the #2 seeds deserve a BYE. They haven't done anything special and for being the second best team in the conference they are already getting 2 home games under the new format.

And in case you still haven't figured it out I am not a fan of adding one game as I have said multiple times already.

It's ok to be wrong sometimes luke.

 

[luuked]

It's ok to be wrong sometimes luke.

So you got no response and just project your own failure to have a rational argument about the number 2 seed getting a BYE.

Cool.

 

[festy1986]

So you got no response and just project your own failure to have a rational argument about the number 2 seed getting a BYE.

Cool.

Why would I argue wether or not there should be a bye for the number 2 seed when I dont even support the argument as a whole.

Extra game doesnt do anything for me. Passssssse

 

[TheRainMaker]

Get rid of all Tags. I’m tired of teams holding players hostage that can’t sign them long term. NFL was supposed to enforce this but plenty of teams are abusing/getting away wit it.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Get rid of divisions and just have AFC and NFC. Teams with the best records make the playoffs. I’m tired of them playing the same teams over and over again.

 

[XLIX]

Get rid of all Tags. I’m tired of teams holding players hostage that can’t sign them long term. NFL was supposed to enforce this but plenty of teams are abusing/getting away wit it.

Whuh huh wuhhhhhhh? How is the NFL supposed to enforce whether or not a team tags a player? There are rules regarding how much you can use the franchise/transition tags but beyond that, what's there to enforce?

 

[luuked]

Whuh huh wuhhhhhhh? How is the NFL supposed to enforce whether or not a team tags a player? There are rules regarding how much you can use the franchise/transition tags but beyond that, what's there to enforce?

The CBA kinda states that there needs to be a “good-faith intention to employ the player" when tagging him. In other words it is not necessarily legal in terms of the CBA language to tag and trade players. The same is actually also true for tendered RFA players.

This has come up many times in recent years most visibly for Pats fans when the Saints/Butler flirting was going on or the Cassel situation in 2009. Also other times with the Eagles and Foles and just last year with Ford and KC.

See: Eagles’ apparent tag-and-trade plan for Nick Foles would violate the CBA

Obviously the NFLPA doesn't seem to have a huge issue with it because the traded players usually end up with big contracts and in a place where they are wanted.

But whats in the CBA is in the CBA.

 

[Doctor DDS]

I hate the idea of an extra playoff team as I don't like 9 win teams making it. Football is a game of attrition and having a poor regular season should not be rewarded. The NFL currently has the best playoff format of all professional sports and changing it would reduce the importance of the regular season. Since it's a bad idea I fully expect them to do it.

 

[borg]

Seems a bit unfair that a winner of a Saturday playoff game might face a winner of a Monday night playoff game