New CBA likely to include 17th game and expanded playoff format...does this result in a lockout?

[row_33]

7 minutes ago, Foxx said:

0% chance of a lock out. and just for the record, the owners lock out, the players strike.

 

 

 

?

 

nah.

 

its easily the weakest players union in major pro sports, they are always getting trucked at negotiations

 

the nature of the game is a weekly paycheck, for practically every player, and you can get cut for any reason at any time

 

 

[Foxx]

4 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

its easily the weakest players union in major pro sports, they are always getting trucked at negotiations

 

the nature of the game is a weekly paycheck, for practically every player, and you can get cut for any reason at any time

 

 

nah. the other unions are just unusually strong. remember, we are talking about grown men playing kids games. it is you and i that are getting screwed in the end. $12 for a ***** can of beer, give me a break.

[Doc Brown]

4 hours ago, hjnick said:

I think 2 byes is a good thing if going to 17 games, BUT I would make 1 bye be in the middle of the season where every player gets off. Sort of like a football midseason bye week where there could be a 'All star game' type of feel and have skills competitions.  Then an additional floating bye throughout the season.  That actually stretches out the regular season to 19 weeks.  

That won't happen as tv networks will want to air games all 19 weeks.  The popularity of fantasy football and gambling should keep ratings up.  What they should do is give the two TNF teams a bye the weekend before.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

6 hours ago, MJS said:

Really don't want expanded playoffs. Diluting the quality of the playoffs is not the answer.

Except crappy teams making it happens more often if they expand it.

An extra week of crappy playoff teams is still better to me than an extra week of all teams. 
 

I still can’t figure out why they can’t find other ways to get more tv money out of the 256 games they already play. Just addBig a week seems like the least imaginative thing a 20 billion dollar industry could do. 

[mannc]

3 hours ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

IMO it will ruin the league if that happens.  

Just like it ruined the NBA??

[Albany,n.y.]

Why would anyone ask a question about a lockout when the current CBA runs through next season & reports are the new agreement will be done within a month?  

[ColoradoBills]

2 minutes ago, mannc said:

Just like it ruined the NBA??

 

Team roster sizes and player time on the field/court make the comparison apples and oranges.

 

But the long term guaranteed contracts in the NHL is having a negative effect on the game IMO.

[aristocrat]

sounds like the new cba is about to be passed. 

[MJS]

13 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

An extra week of crappy playoff teams is still better to me than an extra week of all teams. 
 

I still can’t figure out why they can’t find other ways to get more tv money out of the 256 games they already play. Just addBig a week seems like the least imaginative thing a 20 billion dollar industry could do. 

I personally prefer the playoffs to remain difficult to get into and I like the fact that good teams sometimes don't make it.

[aristocrat]

https://twitter.com/MikeGarafolo/status/1230604384956043264?s=20

[Mango]

If I am the NFLPA I answer back with: 
 

1. Larger % of TV money.

2. Stop testing for pot.

3. An extra bye. 

4. Less contact in camp, pre season, season etc. 

 

If I am the owners, I concede all of those things, but mandate more time in the facility in the offseason. Product will be better, so the fans are happy. NFL makes more money. Players make more money. We are all good. 

 

[ColoradoBills]

12 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

https://twitter.com/MikeGarafolo/status/1230604384956043264?s=20

 

Part of his tweet.  Seems the owners have voted.  Up to the NFLPA now.

 

Edited February 20, 2020 by ColoradoBills

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

19 minutes ago, MJS said:

I personally prefer the playoffs to remain difficult to get into and I like the fact that good teams sometimes don't make it.

not me. I’d rather more meaningful tournament games and less meaningless reg season games. 2 of the 16 week 17 game mattered for anything at all. Boring. 

[MJS]

1 hour ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

Part of his tweet.  Seems the owners have voted.  Up to the NFLPA now.

 

Haha, well that's the easy part. Hard part is getting the player's association on board.

[Mr. WEO]

23 minutes ago, MJS said:

Haha, well that's the easy part. Hard part is getting the player's association on board.

They are.

[aristocrat]

jj watt voting no

[DJB]

Rosters will be expanded to 55 players

[RocCityRoller]

Lock out no, some wheeling and dealing by NFLPA yes.

 

Likely will be 17 games, 7 playoff teams per conference, 2 bye weeks, down to 2-3 preseason games, and importantly an expanded game day roster. NFL gets 17 games and 7 playoff teams per conference. NFLPA gets 2 bye weeks, one or two less preseason games and increased union membership. That seems a win-win.

 

If the 17th game is split fairly this means a London/Toronto/Mexico City game for each team to try to expand the sport. England, Canada and Mexico are the obvious tries to expand. Now that the UK is not beholden to the EU, even more so as a business. (does not have to comply with EU regulations on sport). East Coast teams play in London or Montreal, Midwest teams play in Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton (CFL stadiums), west coast plays in Mexico City or Vancouver. CFL stadiums make the most sense for an immediate major expansion. Maybe this is a move to investing in the CFL, Arena Football League or XFL? The NFL doesn't yet have a farm system.

 

A 9-8 home and away schedule is unfair, and the NFL wants to expand like the NBA. Each team should have to play the 17th game as an away game IMO. In a way this helps Buffalo if Toronto or even Montreal are designated foreign cities.

 

I can see Buffalo being a regular participant in Toronto, Montreal or London games. I would gladly take one of those trips a year.

 

If I were the NFLPA I would want no divisional games in a foreign market, no divisional games before a foreign trip, and one of my bye weeks immediately after a foreign trip. Keep the rivalries alive stateside. Interconference games should be the foreign game, IMO. Buffalo vs Dallas in London or Toronto would have been amazing.

 

Changes will happen to our NFL. I am not a fan, but since this seems a lock, then manage it properly.

 

Sadly I don't see this common sense approach working out, but I hope for the best. The game continues to walk away from me.

Edited February 21, 2020 by RocCityRoller

[1ManRaid]

13 hours ago, Greg S said:

I am not so sure I want expanded playoffs. I don't want the NFL to become like the NHL/NBA with how many teams make the playoffs. What are we going to have a 6-10 team making the playoffs. I mean 6-11 if they have a 17 game season. Keep it at 16 games and don't add more playoff teams. JMHO!!!

How the hell are 6 win teams going make the playoffs?  The only way to make the playoffs with a losing record is to win your division.  The 7th playoff team is still going to likely be 9+ wins, like when the Pats missed the playoffs with double digit wins when Brady went down.

[major]

6 hours ago, Mango said:

If I am the NFLPA I answer back with: 
 

1. Larger % of TV money.

2. Stop testing for pot.

3. An extra bye. 

4. Less contact in camp, pre season, season etc. 

 

If I am the owners, I concede all of those things, but mandate more time in the facility in the offseason. Product will be better, so the fans are happy. NFL makes more money. Players make more money. We are all good. 

 

Fixed it:

1. Larger % of TV money

2. Medical expenses covered for life

3. Extra bye (no preseason games)

4. No contact in camp (camp Marv style)

[Mr. WEO]

6 hours ago, Mango said:

If I am the NFLPA I answer back with: 
 

1. Larger % of TV money.

2. Stop testing for pot.

3. An extra bye. 

4. Less contact in camp, pre season, season etc. 

 

If I am the owners, I concede all of those things, but mandate more time in the facility in the offseason. Product will be better, so the fans are happy. NFL makes more money. Players make more money. We are all good. 

 

 

 

They just conceded "all of those things", essentially.

[ALF]

Need all 53 active for 16 game season ,  increase to 58 active for 17 game season  for player safety. 

[Doc Brown]

Three questions about the 17th game.  What factor will determine who each team plays?  Will all the neutral site game all be in different countries?  Will the NFL expand into China?

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

11 hours ago, RocCityRoller said:

Lock out no, some wheeling and dealing by NFLPA yes.

 

Likely will be 17 games, 7 playoff teams per conference, 2 bye weeks, down to 2-3 preseason games, and importantly an expanded game day roster. NFL gets 17 games and 7 playoff teams per conference. NFLPA gets 2 bye weeks, one or two less preseason games and increased union membership. That seems a win-win.

 

If the 17th game is split fairly this means a London/Toronto/Mexico City game for each team to try to expand the sport. England, Canada and Mexico are the obvious tries to expand. Now that the UK is not beholden to the EU, even more so as a business. (does not have to comply with EU regulations on sport). East Coast teams play in London or Montreal, Midwest teams play in Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton (CFL stadiums), west coast plays in Mexico City or Vancouver. CFL stadiums make the most sense for an immediate major expansion. Maybe this is a move to investing in the CFL, Arena Football League or XFL? The NFL doesn't yet have a farm system.

 

A 9-8 home and away schedule is unfair, and the NFL wants to expand like the NBA. Each team should have to play the 17th game as an away game IMO. In a way this helps Buffalo if Toronto or even Montreal are designated foreign cities.

 

I can see Buffalo being a regular participant in Toronto, Montreal or London games. I would gladly take one of those trips a year.

 

If I were the NFLPA I would want no divisional games in a foreign market, no divisional games before a foreign trip, and one of my bye weeks immediately after a foreign trip. Keep the rivalries alive stateside. Interconference games should be the foreign game, IMO. Buffalo vs Dallas in London or Toronto would have been amazing.

 

Changes will happen to our NFL. I am not a fan, but since this seems a lock, then manage it properly.

 

Sadly I don't see this common sense approach working out, but I hope for the best. The game continues to walk away from me.

 

Pretty much agree with your comments except think the item in bold would be difficult to accomplish while also doing the other things you mention  East coast teams play in London or Montreal, midwest teams in Canada, makes sense, but  then you suggest Dallas vs Buffalo in London or Toronto. 

 

Small point, but just seems to me the part in bold would become too difficult to schedule around.  They can try to o that, but will be exceptions and guarantee there will be 60 plus page thread right here on this site complaining how the Bills got screwed by the schedule makers while NE got the easy travel deal out of it.

[JaCrispy]

12 hours ago, aristocrat said:

jj watt voting no

Of course he is...he can’t even last a month without getting injured...no way he is going to want an extra game...?

[Mike in Horseheads]

15 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

They are.

Exactly, the press release said the NFL players and clubs have jointly...

...Thats like saying the UAW and Ford have come to a agreement pending members votes. If the terms were agreed to by the negotiating team the members almost always follow.

[plenzmd1]

35 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

Of course he is...he can’t even last a month without getting injured...no way he is going to want an extra game...?

He can afford a work stoppage..and has made prolly over $100M in his career...think Levi Wallace wants to miss game checks?

Edited February 21, 2020 by plenzmd1

[Mike in Horseheads]

Adam Schefter

@AdamSchefter

·

1m

Regarding CBA players vote on today. Rosters would increase to 48 players from 46 on gameday, with overall rosters going to 55 from 53; practice squads would increase to 14 players in 2022, and 12 this year, up from 10. Teams would be allowed to bring back 3 players from IR.

[BillsMafi$]

What happens if the players don’t vote to accept the cba today?

[Mr. WEO]

12 minutes ago, BillsMafi$ said:

What happens if the players don’t vote to accept the cba today?

locked out next season

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

42 minutes ago, BillsMafi$ said:

What happens if the players don’t vote to accept the cba today?

 

It's not like the owners agreed to this deal in a vacuum.  people from the union were involved and have to believe that overall there is much agreement.  Could be the owners will have to make another concession someplace to gets the votes to pass.  Think they are way to close to end up in a lockout situation.  I wonder too in Watts case do most of the Texans agree with him or is this just him speaking out against it.

[ColoradoBills]

2 hours ago, Mike in Horseheads said:

Adam Schefter

@AdamSchefter

·

1m

Regarding CBA players vote on today. Rosters would increase to 48 players from 46 on gameday, with overall rosters going to 55 from 53; practice squads would increase to 14 players in 2022, and 12 this year, up from 10. Teams would be allowed to bring back 3 players from IR.

 

Thanks Mike, that's a big deal in my book!  Will definitely help in rotation and player development.

 

Side note:  I've been to Horseheads a number of times for work (Synthes) in the past.  Always had fun there.

[Mike in Horseheads]

2 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

Thanks Mike, that's a big deal in my book!  Will definitely help in rotation and player development.

 

Side note:  I've been to Horseheads a number of times for work (Synthes) in the past.  Always had fun there.

Thats awesome! It is what you make of it.

[1stgm1993]

3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

locked out next season

 

they a have release says if not approved would play under last cba rules so i dont think a lockout would happen

[nucci]

4 hours ago, 1stgm1993 said:

 

they a have release says if not approved would play under last cba rules so i dont think a lockout would happen

unless the owners decide they don't want another season under current rules

[Big Turk]

On 2/21/2020 at 11:06 AM, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

 

It's not like the owners agreed to this deal in a vacuum.  people from the union were involved and have to believe that overall there is much agreement.  Could be the owners will have to make another concession someplace to gets the votes to pass.  Think they are way to close to end up in a lockout situation.  I wonder too in Watts case do most of the Texans agree with him or is this just him speaking out against it.

 

Doesn't look like too many player reps are on board with this "agreement". Seems like a classic posturing move on the NFL's part.

Edited February 22, 2020 by matter2003

[Nextmanup]

On 2/21/2020 at 9:41 AM, JaCrispy said:

Of course he is...he can’t even last a month without getting injured...no way he is going to want an extra game...?

If you were also made of glass, you'd feel the same way!

 

?

[Mr. WEO]

3 hours ago, matter2003 said:

 

Doesn't look like too many player reps are on board with this "agreement". Seems like a classic posturing move on the NFL's part.

 

 

That's strange since every one of them has been negotiating the next CBA with the League with an extra game on the table since day one.  The NFL didn't just sneak it in last week....

[BillsFan4]

https://theathletic.com/1627267/2020/02/23/why-richard-sherman-and-other-vets-arent-fans-of-the-nfl-owners-cba-proposal/

Why Richard Sherman and other vets aren’t fans of the NFL owners’ CBA proposal (Subscription required)

 

Interesting article looking at the CBA talks from the players side.

 

Quote

The NFL has deftly engineered this, as the league generally does, so that it appears labor peace is just around the corner. That the players will gladly add a game to the 16-game regular-season schedule in a revamped format that also includes a seventh playoff team per conference, in return for a bump in revenue...

 

The NFL’s leaders have learned in recent years that they can win this public relations battle fairly easily.

 

“This cycle repeats itself every time. NFL leaks positive stories about the direction of talks. NFL leaks select details to make the deal seem like a no brainer. Players reject bad deal and NFL fakes umbrage so fans turn on players,” tweeted former NFL defensive end Stephen White, who writes for SB Nation.

 

But established veterans like Houston’s J.J. Watt and the 49ers’ Richard Sherman are adamantly against the owners’ proposal.

 

Quote

There are several reasons for this, and not just because Watt suffered a pectoral tear and Sherman endured multiple lower-body ailments in what was the ninth NFL season for both players.

 

-The NFL won’t be satisfied with just 17 games

“That’s the part that’s really concerning for us as a union and us as players, because they think that players have a price tag on their health,” said Sherman, a vice president on the NFLPA executive committee. 

And I don’t think we’re in the same ballpark in that regard. Players have been more aware of player safety and longevity and just life after football. And the league kind of pretends that they’re interested in it, pretends that they care about it, makes all these rules and fines all these players, but then still proposes for players to play an extra game. And not just 17. They’re really just saying 17 so they can get to 18. So that’s two more opportunities for players to risk their bodies and put their bodies on the line. That’s what’s so ridiculous about it, and nobody calls them out. Nobody calls out the hypocrisy.”

 

With a 17-game schedule, teams wouldn’t play an equal number of home and road games. This inherent unfairness in scheduling would immediately become a point of contention for everyone and then NFL would act as if it’s doing everyone a favor by going to 18 games.

 

-The NFL is offering compromises that don’t appeal to veterans as much as the rank-and-file

In order to get union approval, owners are doing what they’ve had success with in the past, preying on the short-term interests of less-established players who don’t possess the job security or financial flexibility to ask for more.

 

(Continued in link)

 

[Mr. WEO]

3 camps: 

Reps who want the deal as is

 

Reps who will take the deal with tweaks

 

Reps who won’t take the deal