Tuco

Interesting. I was able to go to XXV also, but I thought it was a fantastic event. Maybe my circumstances were a bit different. I won the lottery so me and my buddy were able to get out tickets for $150 each. And my buddy had a buddy who lived less than a mile from the stadium so we were able to stay at his house for free. And his buddy also had connections at one of those huge downtown clubs so we were able to get in (KC And The Sunshine Bad was playing LOL) without standing in line like so many others. But I thought the downtown party the night before was a riot, and there were many fans of both teams. The one thing that sticks out is most fans were wearing their blue jerseys so every time you would see a Giants #56 we would yell, "Hey yeah, Darryl Talley woohoo!" and of course they would puff their chest and say "This is an LT jersey man!" I really have a whole different take it seems than you. Interesting. But then we never did agree on much. Of course back then I was 27, buffaloes shaved in the side of my head and ready for anything that looked fun. Now I'm 57 and have no desire at all to go to another Super Bowl. But I feel for the young fans here in my home town. They've been getting excited over the last couple years, and I've been telling them just how great it will be if we ever get good again. And I tell them I hope they get to experience going to see our team in the big game at least once. And now here we are, all those good games this year nobody could attend. On the verge of our first home playoff game(s) in forever and nobody can attend. And uncertainty surrounding the attendance and atmosphere of the big game. It's a bummer for sure for these young guys who, like me, waited patiently for our team to get good again. Hopefully we can stay good for a bunch of years. EDIT: Although as I think back on it now, it really was just that one night before the game that I thought was full of jubilant fans. The rest of the time I suppose it really was just visiting a different city and doing whatever there is to do there. Still we thought it was cool going into Hooters and ordering wings, only to have the waitress tell us Ray Bentley was in the night before and he ate all his wings, bones and all. Just crunched them up and ate 'em up.

This is correct. A two way tie with KC we lose. A two way tie with Pitt we win. A three way tie with Pitt and KC we win on SOV as long as one of the KC losses is the Chargers. A four way tie would eliminate Baltimore first as Pitt beat them twice. So a 4 way tie is a 3 way tie.

Nice review. I don't even feel the slightest urge to nitpick. Well done.

A lot of people don't seem to realize, the deal has already been struck. There is no keeping it flat for a couple years. The CBA covers this scenario. It says in the event of catastrophic (me paraphrasing but whatever) decrease in revenues due to something like a Pandemic, both sides will work it out. And they did. But the players are still going to get the same percentage of revenue they were always going to get. And in the long run, that will be less for at least one year. Owners get less, players get less. This year's cap is based on this year's projected revenue, just like every year. But it was projected before the pandemic. Every year the cap is figured on projected revenue and then an adjustment is made to reflect any gains or shortfalls from the previous year in relation to its projection. So the huge shortfall in revenue this year will be reflected in next year's cap. The players could have agreed to lower this year's cap, but they weren't interested, so they kicked the can. The agreement was next year's cap will be no lower than $175 million, even if it's supposed to be less than that (the owners were pushing for $165M because they know how much they're losing). And any amount it's supposed to be below $175 will be absorbed by reducing the remaining shortfall from the total cap in the subsequent years. I'm not just making this number up. It was agreed to via an amended CBA back in September. Could they just amend the CBA again? Sure. But don't think for a moment the owners are going to give a bigger percentage away. And the serious loss of revenue this year is going to be reflected in next year's $175 million cap. That cap has already been negotiated. The only real issue is how much it will affect the cap in the years after that.

The ESPN one is up and running now. http://www.espn.com/nfl/playoffs/machine

That rule doesn't apply to week 17. Nor does the rule allowing networks to protect certain games from flexing. The NFL has unilateral decision making in scheduling week 17, all on only 6 days notice.

The pickings are less than slim. They don't just take 2 games out of the whole Sunday schedule. There are 5 games pre-selected before the season starts, and they will move a minimum of 2, but possibly 3 of those games to Saturday. The choices are- Lion @ Titans Jets @ Rams Texans @ Colts Panthers @ Packers Bills @ Broncos Also, FWIW, since the selected teams are switching days and not just time slots, the NFL says they will be informed a minimum of 4 weeks in advance.

They have already agreed to that big of a drop in cap. Most businesses and employees in America have lost wages of some sort this year because their employer lost wages. The CBA is very specific in how the cap is tabulated, and the players voted to keep their salaries the same this year even though league revenue is way down. The agreement they made was that revenue (and subsequent salary drop) will be made up next year (and possibly beyond). The cap is based every year on the projected revenue for the year, and then there is an adjustment made every year to reflect any difference in the projected revenue to the actual revenue from the previous year. So it's very possible the cap next year may be $200 million. But then there will be a huge adjustment because the players voted, and the NFLPA agreed, that instead of taking any kind of pay cut this year, they would proceed as normal with the cap, with the exception that any adjustment that makes the cap lower than $175 million in 2021 will be pushed even further into the next year(s). So what happens? The NFL has a huge difference in revenue this year compared to what was projected, and subsequently the players are getting a much larger portion of revenue this year than they should according to the CBA. How much revenue difference? Well it's hard to say, but using some rough math we can say conservatively there's about 60,000 tickets not being sold every game. So let's say $100 per ticket average, times 60,000 = $6,000,000 times 8 home games per team = $48,000,000 times 32 teams = $1,536,000,000. Add in loss of parking, concessions, luxury suites, 12 playoff games and the Super Bowl, etc., we can easily see a revenue shortfall of , let's say, $1.8 billion. Anybody who thinks the league is going to ignore that kind of money in the name of keeping their salary cap flat is delusional. So let's take the players' roughly 48% of $1.8 billion, that's $864,000,000 in total reduction that needs to be rectified in the 2021 cap. $864,000,000/32 teams means a reduction adjustment of $27 million in cap for each team. So even if next year's cap does go up to $200 based on next year's revenue projections, it will then have $27 million subtracted (or actually $25 million so it doesn't go below $175 in 2021 and the rest pushed back another year). Now people saying this isn't going to happen because it will create cap hell for a lot of teams don't seem to understand, it's already been bargained and negotiated. It's what they were doing right before training camp while they were hashing out all the other COVID rules. And all teams are expecting it to happen. It's been agreed to by both sides already. And unless there's some changes in the amount of fans allowed into games it's going to be ugly next year. Everybody knows it. The owners aren't stupid when it comes to money, and they were actually pushing for the floor to be $165 million next year. There's a reason for that. They know how much revenue they're losing. People need to stop thinking the league will ignore around $1.5 - $2.0 billion in lost revenue in the name of keeping their salary cap flat. They've already made that decision.

I'm certainly not complaining, but I'm not so sure "he" made the right audible call. Josh starts the audible right around the :15 mark on the play clock, which means it's very possible the OC told him what play to audible to. But yes, I get the gist of your post and it is good to see.

All the good teams defer, and it makes sense for all the reasons above. The bad teams also defer because they want to be like the good teams. Deferring is a great idea, but if you go on to allow a long TD drive to start the game and then start the 2nd half with a quick 3 and out, you're beating yourself over the head trying to act like a good team. Should we defer? Of course we should. But I don't know how many times during our 17 year playoff hiatus we did just exactly what I described above, nor am I going to try to look it up. But it happened a lot, especially the 3 and out in the 2nd. Nothing blows your whole game plan, strategy, momentum and juju-mojo like going 3 and out to start the 2nd half. And deferring to have the wind at your back to start the game doesn't work very well if you give up a nine and a half minute touchdown drive to start the game.

The league sends a noise loop to each team that has to be played at an exact decibel level. Fines to teams and responsible personnel and loss of draft picks are the penalty for not adhering. https://twitter.com/TomPelissero/status/1301653002390994945/photo/1

I should edit this. During the years before they made the rule where you could bring guys back from IR if they made the 53 it didn't happen because there was no reason for it to. But before the salary cap, when that rule saying every IR player was gone for the whole season, it happened a lot. As in, every team would do it with 3-4 players every year. I guess I'm showing my age.

This has been going on for 50 years (probably more). I'm pretty sure both sides are okay with it.

It always happens with every team. It's been happening for about 40 years that I know of. Last year's example was cutting safety Kurt Coleman, putting Croom on IR after he made the 53 and then resigning Coleman.

Has it been mentioned anywhere that if a player misses a game without having an injury or some other CBA accepted excuse he doesn't just lose 1/17 of his salary? He loses 25% of it, including 25% of prorated amounts of signing bonuses and roster bonuses. Dak Prescott would be giving up $7.75 million. Stefon Diggs - $2.95 million. Of course for every high paid player there's a dozen or so who make much less. Is Zack Moss going to give up $209,650 of his $610,000 for a one game protest? One would think if the players were that serious about effecting change they could find a better use for that money besides giving it back to their employer. Now if the NFLPA is talking to the league about somehow doing this without that kind of retribution, then it would no longer be a wildcat strike. It would just be a thing agreed to by both sides.

The cap is not going up next year. It will be $175 million.

He will un-retire on or about September 5th.

I'm reminded of a story I once heard about Joe Montana playing in Kansas City after all his years in San Fran. Occasionally during the game he would belt out an audible to a play he knew would be better, but his teammates would look at him like he was nuts because he would revert to the San Fran verbiage out of habit..

Active PUP is what they get put on in training camp. As soon as the player is cleared to practice he comes off the list and can practice immediately. The inactive list (actually reserve PUP) is what the player has to go on if he can't start the regular season. At that point the player is ineligible to play or practice for 6 weeks. Active PUP counts against the applicable 80/90 man roster etc. Reserve PUP does not count against the 53 man roster.

All the wiggle room they need exists. There is no force mejeure clause. But there is a clause that says if there is a significant cap drop because of missed games then both sides are bound to work out an agreement that is fair to both sides. Everything after that is speculation because nobody knows right now exactly what's going to happen yet. When it does happen then they will have solid numbers to work with. And yes it's been discussed and seems most likely that any significant drop in next year's cap would most likely be agreed to spread it out over several years. Now if the season were to be totally cancelled that would certainly be an obstacle. Without a force mejeure clause it will become an ugly battle with most likely protracted court decisions, etc. But again, nobody knows. There are no simple answers to these questions right now. Wait and see is pretty much all we can do at this point. Here's pretty much the only language in the CBA, and it leaves a wide open field of what ultimately may or may not happen. NOTE: The term "AR" refers to "All Revenue" as defined in the CBA as the amount agreed upon each year on which to base the salary cap- (xii) Cancelled Games. If one or more weeks of any NFL season are cancelled or AR for any League Year substantially decreases, in either case due to a terrorist or military action, natural disaster, or similar event, the parties shall engage in good faith negotiations to adjust the provisions of this Agreement with respect to the projection of AR and the Salary Cap for the following League Year so that AR for the following League Year is projected in a fair manner consistent with the changed revenue projection caused by such action.

First of all, before the cap goes up in 2021 it's going to go down. The cap is computed each year on projected revenues, plus or minus any adjustments made to the actual revenue from the previous season's revenues, in relation to how far off that projection was from the real thing. This year's revenue is going to be largely, hugely, bigly over projected. That already means a drop in next year's cap just to make up for that adjustment. Yes it can be renegotiated in the event of a catastrophe, but rest assured any new deal isn't going to wind up with the players getting any larger percentage in the long haul. More likely they will negotiate a prorating of next year's cap loss over the next 5 years or something. But it will go down before it goes up. Now as far as adding 3 games on Saturday, I don't see where that would add anywhere near 50% to the existing TV revenue. I can see some increase, maybe. But there's only 16 games a week now, and the "regular" Sunday game networks already are able to protect a certain amount of games from being flexed out of their time slots because with all the prime time games now their slate of "marketable" games sometimes gets quite thin. Would all Saturday games be considered prime time? So would there be 6/7 out of 16 (at most) games every week played in prime time? And if so will the networks who already lose games to prime time sit idly by while they lose more? Or are they the ones who will be expected to pay more for the games they already pay for, many of which aren't very attractive and only appear in each team's home market? Sorry I'm seeing a lot of unconnected dots that lead to a big jump in the 2021 cap.

FWIW the CBA has always contained special rules to be able to use practice squad players with out all the normal rules (like the 3 week minimums and having to clear waivers before being re-signed to the squad, etc.) in the event of a team is hit by a contagious disease.

The CBA already carries provisions for contagious diseases. All practice squad players (there's what, 14 now?) contracts include a contagious disease addendum which modify the rules regarding bringing practice squad players up to the 53 man roster in the event a team is given roster exemptions in the event of a contagious disease outbreak - including allowing the team to bring them up for a single week instead of the guaranteed 3 weeks. And also allowing the team to place the player back on the PS without having to clear waivers. Basically if a team has an outbreak of a contagious disease and gets roster exemptions from the league for said players, they will be allowed to use the PS players as regular players without the usual restrictions associated with promoting PS players to the 53 man roster and plcing them back on the PS again. This has been a rule in the CBA for years.

Counting playoffs and preseasons, right around 200. But I only live 30 miles away.

First of all the Yahoo article is crap. Schefter never says anything about 50%. Schefter says $3.2 Billion - or $30-$80 million. Then further down Yahoo writes about the salary cap being at least $120 mil since 2012. That's where the $50% figure comes from. In reality, let's say it is $3.2 billion. That's a nice round $100 million per team. And the salary cap is roughly 49% of that. Except it isn't. The 49% figure the players share includes all player costs, including insurance payments, pension contributions etc. Once all that is figured, then the salary cap for the year is figured. Regardless, if the figure is $3.2 billion, the cap would go down a large percentage of roughly 49% of that. So let's say it goes down $40 million. Yes that's a lot, but it's really only around 20%. That's not great for all parties involved, but it's certainly manageable. And no the league doesn't have a force mejeure clause. They do have a clause that states both parties will bargain in good faith to adjust the cap if games are missed. And they also have the ability to go back and redo the agreement any time if needed. So it's entirely possible they could look at the final numbers and then agree to prorate a $30-$40 million reduction over 5 years or whatever. It's not going to be $50 percent and the Yahoo writer is a tool for saying so. My $.02