Report: Owners willing to strip Goodell's disciplinary powers in next CBA...

[XLIX]

So Bye is before TNF. Does TNF become the international game then?

I'm definitely in favor of adding a second bye week. It would be a bare minimum starting point before anyone should even consider adding another week of games, and even within a 16 game schedule I still think it makes sense. And definitely, I strongly believe that no team should ever play TNF unless they're coming off a bye already. Plus that's one more NFL sunday per year, so it seems like a win-win all around.

The unintended consequence of a 2nd bye week - which the NFL tried once before - is having too many weekends during the season where the matchups simply suck.

 

[XLIX]

If the players won't agree to more games then there will be a strike and I doubt the players budge this time after the screwing they took during the last CBA negotiations.

The players always budge. Too many of them simply cannot afford to miss paychecks. I know that sounds crazy when so many of them have made millions, but they spend out to the limit and anticipate those checks which are on the way.

 

[upstater1]

Here's a suggestion to improve the game: bigger rosters.

But no the NFL won't go for taking money out of the owner's pockets, even if it would improve the game. If the Patriots could have held onto more OL for depth, we wouldn't have been looking for guys like Bodine, Eluemenor, Cunningham, Newhouse in the third week of the season! EXPAND rosters so you have continuity with people who know the offense in the case of injuries. It will make for better games.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

It means that they wouldn't have a game on the Sunday Before a Thursday night game. Also, like, now, they wouldn't play the Sunday immediately following a Thursday game.

Essentially they gets 10 days off before TNF and 11 days off after the game.....
TNF wouldn't work for international games because an 8:30 PM East Coast start would be 2:30 am in London....or Hamburg or wherever in Europe they would play. So a mandatory International game wouldn't get a bye week unless they added another bye week....
Keep the 16 game season but do it over 18 weeks..... No more harm to the players and owners get an extra week of TV revenue....

 

[Ring 6]

Here's a suggestion to improve the game: bigger rosters.

But no the NFL won't go for taking money out of the owner's pockets, even if it would improve the game. If the Patriots could have held onto more OL for depth, we wouldn't have been looking for guys like Bodine, Eluemenor, Cunningham, Newhouse in the third week of the season! EXPAND rosters so you have continuity with people who know the offense in the case of injuries. It will make for better games.

I don’t think it’s the owners who don’t want bigger rosters it’s the NFLPA.
It won’t cost the owners a nickel because it’s the same cap number spread over more players. It the NFLPA which as a union must struggle with the conflict of adding jobs vs increasing pay for those with jobs.

 

[Ring 6]

Essentially they gets 10 days off before TNF and 11 days off after the game.....
TNF wouldn't work for international games because an 8:30 PM East Coast start would be 2:30 am in London....or Hamburg or wherever in Europe they would play. So a mandatory International game wouldn't get a bye week unless they added another bye week....
Keep the 16 game season but do it over 18 weeks..... No more harm to the players and owners get an extra week of TV revenue....

Or get rid of the preseason and play 18.

 

[BradyFTW!]

The unintended consequence of a 2nd bye week - which the NFL tried once before - is having too many weekends during the season where the matchups simply suck.

I'm fine with that. You really only need like 3 good matchups in a weekend anyway, and when it results in healthier rosters down the stretch the effect that has on game quality will more than outweigh any drawbacks relating to byes.

Every matchup in the NFL is basically 1-2 injuries from being a ****ty game anyway, so if you reduce the odds of those injuries you're going to come out ahead.

 

[upstater1]

I don’t think it’s the owners who don’t want bigger rosters it’s the NFLPA.
It won’t cost the owners a nickel because it’s the same cap number spread over more players. It the NFLPA which as a union must struggle with the conflict of adding jobs vs increasing pay for those with jobs.

I don't think this is true in the sense that the players at the bottom of the roster, those making at or near the NFL min., don't count against the roster. Essentially, what I'm arguing for, is that the so-called practice squad be eliminated so that teams could expand their rosters with players ready to step in. They wouldn't count against the minimum if they were effectively practice squadders (even with many years under their belt) making the NFL minimum.

I'm not advocating for more middle-income players.

 

[Oswlek]

The NFL: Where meeting the minimum requirement of business due diligence is held out as a negotiating ploy.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't think this is true in the sense that the players at the bottom of the roster, those making at or near the NFL min., don't count against the roster. Essentially, what I'm arguing for, is that the so-called practice squad be eliminated so that teams could expand their rosters with players ready to step in. They wouldn't count against the minimum if they were effectively practice squadders (even with many years under their belt) making the NFL minimum.

I'm not advocating for more middle-income players.

For the owners it wouldn’t cost a nickel so they gave no reason to object. From the player standpoint it can cause a ripple effect. Add 10 players at the minimum and other players on the 53 will be affected.
There could be an ulterior reason the owners would care but I don’t see it.

 

[Soliel]

A neutral arbitrator like Troy Vincent?

Nah, Ted Wells or Boger

 

[primetime]

The players always budge. Too many of them simply cannot afford to miss paychecks. I know that sounds crazy when so many of them have made millions, but they spend out to the limit and anticipate those checks which are on the way.

The union has an inherent tension between the haves and have-nots among the players. Tom Brady and Drew Brees have very different interests in collective bargaining than Eric Tomlinsons and Cole Crostons. All unions experience this to some extent but it's extremely exaggerated in the NFLPA. As a result, the union is not a cohesive entity representing universal interests. The owners are simply much easier to organize to move in lockstep (especially now that the dissenting player-friendly owners like Al Davis and Ralph Wilson are gone) since they're all making money hand over fist and there are much fewer of them.

 

[Froob]

Bet the owners will give the idiot another contract extension before then.

If they haven’t gotten rid of him already, I don’t see why he’s leaving anytime soon. The worst of him has already passed and he didn’t get canned.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

The union has an inherent tension between the haves and have-nots among the players. Tom Brady and Drew Brees have very different interests in collective bargaining than Eric Tomlinsons and Cole Crostons. All unions experience this to some extent but it's extremely exaggerated in the NFLPA. As a result, the union is not a cohesive entity representing universal interests. The owners are simply much easier to organize to move in lockstep (especially now that the dissenting player-friendly owners like Al Davis and Ralph Wilson are gone) since they're all making money hand over fist and there are much fewer of them.

Not a bad post for the worst poster on the board

 

[Froob]

Not a bad post for the worst poster on the board

It’s a very good point indeed.

Semi related tangent, same thing in the NBA. The NBA’s problem is not tanking, not even close. Their problem is the superstars are the best value by far and without a hard cap, you’re boned without stars but the average Joe’s will never allow the superstars to get paid what they’re really worth.

 

[Ring 6]

The union has an inherent tension between the haves and have-nots among the players. Tom Brady and Drew Brees have very different interests in collective bargaining than Eric Tomlinsons and Cole Crostons. All unions experience this to some extent but it's extremely exaggerated in the NFLPA. As a result, the union is not a cohesive entity representing universal interests. The owners are simply much easier to organize to move in lockstep (especially now that the dissenting player-friendly owners like Al Davis and Ralph Wilson are gone) since they're all making money hand over fist and there are much fewer of them.

I like to consider it as the union has a inherent conflict.
A) More pay for those employed
B) more jobs for their unemployed.
Ultimately there is a trade off because the employer won’t give both.
It’s the inherent dilemma in any union.
Someone closer to the issues could probably respond better than I, bit my instinct is they lean toward supporting the large, tenured employed group rather than sacrificing their needs for more employment. (Given the dynamic that typically seniority drives employment in a union situation)

 

[primetime]

Not a bad post for the worst poster on the board

Should've been "haves-not" and not "have-nots"

 

[XLIX]

I'm fine with that. You really only need like 3 good matchups in a weekend anyway,

We don’t even get that right now, just imagine how bad it will be with a 2nd bye week.

 

[Ring 6]

Should've been "haves-not" and not "have-nots"

Evidently mistakes like that win you the worst poster on the board award

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Should've been "haves-not" and not "have-nots"

I stand corrected. F-minus on this post.