CBA voted and APPROVED by players/owners

[Bill from NYC]

7 hours ago, BillsFan17 said:

 

I wonder if the contracts will be a little bit different with the additional game(s).

I expect the bulk of any new money to go to quarterbacks. When they first limited rookie salaries, they implied that the money would go to veteran players. Instead, QBs gobbled it up. I don't see this time being any different.

Some QBs will soon make more than 50 mil. per season imo.

Imagine paying someone this money and seeing them get hurt!!!!!

PS: Who now blames Dak for not signing that contract?

Edited March 15, 2020 by Bill from NYC

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

4 hours ago, Chicken Boo said:

 

However it can happen, I hope it does.

 

Can it? I'd question if it's actually mathematically as for every loss someone else won a game, so would be hard for another team to not have more wins than that and instead maker it.  I guess I'd say the odds of it happening are extremely low. Much better chances of other things happening ... like for example a team ever losing 4 Super Bowls in a row.

[Justin C]

For the 17th game they should make a spectacle out of deciding it. They love TV ratings so make it a 1 or 2 hour special:

 

1. Randomize it with AFC vs NFC teams like ping pong balls. So the Bills would play one other team from either the NFC East, North or South.

 

2. Make it a draft. The Chiefs pick first and decide who they want to face. They have to pick a team not already on their schedule, so they could pick the Bengals first. Then you can get interviews from players trash talking, saying they are going to wish they didn't pick us.

[BillsFan17]

 

[machine gun kelly]

So the argument against the 7 th wildcard team will water down the caliber of teams, well here is the 10 year history.  I didn’t see another thread in the search mods if this were it’s own topic.

 

 NFC Records 2010-2019 (10 years)

2 - 10-6

4 - 9-7

1 - 8-7-1

3 -8-8

 

AFC

1 -10-6

1 -9-6-1

4 - 9-7

4 - 8-8

 

Not one 7-9 wildcard team.  There has been one or two Like Seattle Division winners, but that is a different topic.

 

So the bottom line if you combine for 7th wildcard teams that would have made it in the NFL wildcard game, pretty much against now against the second seed.

 

NFL

3 -10-6

1- 9-6-1

8 - 9-7

1 -8-7-1

7 -8-8

 

Bottom line not 1 losing record in 10 years for the extra wildcard team having a losing record, and 13-20 with winning records.  I know a lot of people are against it, but I like it and it’s more opportunities to see our team get in and maybe surprise a team beating them in the first and second rounds.

 

I hope this helps as it took me awhile to look up by each year, but thought some people would want to read this data.

[SRQ_BillsFan]

 But will 8-9 sneak in when the 17 game season starts?

[row_33]

41 minutes ago, SRQ_BillsFan said:

 But will 8-9 sneak in when the 17 game season starts?

not a wild card probably 

 

winners of a garbage division for sure

[Punching Bag]

11 hours ago, Virgil said:

They only cut one preaseason game?  Figured they’d cut 2.   
 

Expect a lot of player temper tantrums with a vote that close

 

Of course. Lots of holdouts with expecting to be paid for game.  I think there will be a number "contract flu" games where someone is sick but still will want check for 17th game.   I would have preferred a 2nd bye to answer complaints about health.

[Punching Bag]

11 hours ago, MJS said:

I'm a fan. I lost. I don't want expanded playoffs.

You do not need to watch extra game.

[Tuco]

8 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

Of course. Lots of holdouts with expecting to be paid for game.  I think there will be a number "contract flu" games where someone is sick but still will want check for 17th game.   I would have preferred a 2nd bye to answer complaints about health.

They all get paid extra for the extra game. It's part of the agreement.

[Doc Brown]

2 hours ago, machine gun kelly said:

So the argument against the 7 th wildcard team will water down the caliber of teams, well here is the 10 year history.  I didn’t see another thread in the search mods if this were it’s own topic.

 

 NFC Records 2010-2019 (10 years)

2 - 10-6

4 - 9-7

1 - 8-7-1

3 -8-8

 

AFC

1 -10-6

1 -9-6-1

4 - 9-7

4 - 8-8

 

Not one 7-9 wildcard team.  There has been one or two Like Seattle Division winners, but that is a different topic.

 

So the bottom line if you combine for 7th wildcard teams that would have made it in the NFL wildcard game, pretty much against now against the second seed.

 

NFL

3 -10-6

1- 9-6-1

8 - 9-7

1 -8-7-1

7 -8-8

 

Bottom line not 1 losing record in 10 years for the extra wildcard team having a losing record, and 13-20 with winning records.  I know a lot of people are against it, but I like it and it’s more opportunities to see our team get in and maybe surprise a team beating them in the first and second rounds.

 

I hope this helps as it took me awhile to look up by each year, but thought some people would want to read this data.

This should tick people off more.  An 8-8 team should not make the playoffs and 7 would've made it in the last 10 years.  Yuck.

[Punching Bag]

Just now, Tuco said:

They all get paid extra for the extra game. It's part of the agreement.

 

Exactly but since some players do not like it I expect them to have fake illnesses especially towards end of year if not going to be in playoffs.

Players have never had a problem getting paid to not work before.

 

[Tuco]

1 minute ago, Limeaid said:

 

Exactly but since some players do not like it I expect them to have fake illnesses especially towards end of year if not going to be in playoffs.

Players have never had a problem getting paid to not work before.

 

Gotcha. 

[Punching Bag]

8 hours ago, Chicken Boo said:

I hope a 6-10 team makes the playoffs and goes on to win the Super Bowl.

 

Oh was the 17th game called off because the sky fell?

[Chicken Boo]

6 hours ago, Tuco said:

 

I wouldn't lose too much sleep worrying about it happening. But if it makes you happy, go for it.

 

Going back 16 years, the record of the extra teams that would have made the playoffs under the 14 team format-

11-5 ------ 1 time
10-6 ------ 7 times
9-6-1 ----- 1 time
9-7 -------- 14 times
8-7-1 ----- 1 time
8-8 -------- 8 times

 

8-7-1 will do.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

13 hours ago, BillsFan17 said:

 

 

wish it was five years so we can get to 18 games and 16 team playoff sooner.

 

 

[DrPJax]

12 hours ago, BuffaloRebound said:

Damn.  50 votes is a crazy thin margin.  Media made it seem like it was definitely gonna pass.  

1019-959 =60   Not so crazy thin!?? Glad it passed.  People were watching the XFL, and now are worrying about a watered down playoffs ( not addressing this to you ).

It’s still playoff football in the best league available so I will always take that over a substandard product trying to compete or mimic it. One thing will always be certain, viewers will always be in control of their own tv and viewing habits. So if someone is that concerned over one more playoff game, don’t watch it.  I did that with the xfl crap before our unfortunate novel virus epidemic and I haven’t lost any sleep over not watching it. Hoping this improves the Bills chances next year with what looks like a challenging schedule. ?

[MJS]

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

This should tick people off more.  An 8-8 team should not make the playoffs and 7 would've made it in the last 10 years.  Yuck.

Yeah, of course there hasn't been losing teams. They'd have to expand a lot to achieve that unless there is just a really bad division. It's the 8-8 teams I don't want to see in.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

13 hours ago, Virgil said:

They only cut one preaseason game?  Figured they’d cut 2.   
 

Expect a lot of player temper tantrums with a vote that close

 

they will in the next CBA. The owners arent going to give them two preseason games until they get an 18 game schedule.

 

 

[Buffalo Barbarian]

48 active players is BS, how long will they continue this antiquated nonsense?? All players should be active, if a players goes IR then pull em from the PS.

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

If true that 500 players didn’t bother to vote then this was a landslide for ratification.
 

Simple yes no vote.  Very easy to assume those who didn’t vote were not opposed to it or they would have voted against it, if that was what they thought was in their best interest 

[Smitty75]

One more regular season game, nice ! 

[Doc Brown]

3 hours ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

48 active players is BS, how long will they continue this antiquated nonsense?? All players should be active, if a players goes IR then pull em from the PS.

 

 

Belichick addressed this a couple of years ago.  I remember it being news because he actually expanded on an answer instead of "on to Cincinnati."  The NFL made sure to include that of those two extra spots added that one must be an offensive lineman.  That's to prevent the potential "specialist" problems Belichick brings up.

 

Belichick: Those questions, and look, they're good questions, they come up every year, and I know that the league meetings, those get talked about in one version or another. We'll start with the game day roster. The issue with the game day roster is if you allow all the players to play, let's say you allow all 53 players to play, then you get into some competitive situations due to injuries where I have 53 players but you only have 48 because you have guys that are hurt and that type of thing. So there is a competitive aspect to that versus the argument of, 'Well they're all on the team, they're all being paid, so why can't we use them?' It kind of goes back and forth on that one. I think one of the issues with the extra players if you will, like going from 46 to some higher number on game day, it gets into the over-specialization. Do you have a long field goal kicker, a short field goal kicker, a kickoff guy, a field goal kicker, extra specialty-type players that therefore just require other extra specialty-type players? So if you carry four tight ends or you carry a lot of receivers or a lot of backs and use formations and personnel groups ... So you have a Wildcat quarterback, you've got a regular quarterback, you've got a backup quarterback, you've got some other type of quarterback, that just forces a similar specialization on defense to match up with that. I don't know if that's really where we want the game to go. There was a time in the National Football League, not that long ago, when the same 11 players played on offense on every play and the same 11 defensive players played on defense on every play. The fans knew all the players. Now it's hard for me, and I'm full time at this, to keep up with all the players, even on the teams that we play, like the Giants, or I'm sure the Giants are looking at us. There is a lot of roster movement and guys on and off and injuries and practice squad guys and all that, so when you add the practice squad players on the roster potentially because they could be added all the way up to the day before the game, that's other depth that you have on your roster that you can get up to your 46 if you need to. So, you're talking about training camp numbers -- I'm not sure in the overall big picture of the league how many of the players of those extra 320 players, the guys from 80-90, from 81-90, that let's say five years ago wouldn't have been on a roster in training camp, although you had the Europe exemption guys and all that. I'd say the 85-90 number, somewhere in there, was what the training camp numbers have been for a while. You get into that whole how much higher do you need to go than 90 for training camp and what impact do those players really have on the overall quality of the league, although I think without doing a total study on it, certainly my impression is that the injuries in the early part of the season -- training camp to the early part of the season -- is definitely on the incline, so maybe that's something that would warrant further study. And again, I'm sure that the league will take a look at that every year. But in the end, it comes down to the players that are playing, and I think as you get into the second half of the season, what you usually see at this point is players going on injured reserve that are going to be out for the season because the season is shorter, they have less time to recover, players going on injured reserve, teams bringing in emergency players, whether they bring them in from outside the organization or they bring them up from the practice squad, and in a lot of cases those players that get added to the team or even to the 46-man roster don't play a tremendous amount I'd say overall as a group, although there are some notable exceptions. But overall you don't see those guys getting a lot of playing time. So when you lose a player and replace him with an emergency player or a practice squad player on your roster, I'd say probably the general tendency of most teams and most coaches would be to take their other better players who are already on the team and use them more rather than take another body that hasn't been with the team and give those snaps to the player that is now out of the lineup. I think usually you try to find a way to take what you have and just do more with it rather than take somebody that is a lot further away and isn't as familiar with what you're doing and what your system is and think you're going to get them up to the same speed that the guy that you just got hurt was at. Another long answer to a short question, but there are a lot of different aspects to it and obviously there are a lot of other factors involved, like the CBA and the Player's Association and salary cap implications and benefits and a thousand other things, most of which I'm not even familiar with. But it does impact the competitiveness of the game.

[CSBill]

10 hours ago, BillsFan17 said:

 

 

Good, at least there will be sports related activity the next few days.

Edited March 16, 2020 by CSBill

[CSBill]

7 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

This should tick people off more.  An 8-8 team should not make the playoffs and 7 would've made it in the last 10 years.  Yuck.

 

In the big picture, who cares? Why would anyone be mad at that?

 

If nothing, the current unbelievable realities of life we are all facing, remind us of the value of sports as a distraction, but also remind of that there are far more important things in life to worry about than how many 8-8, or 9-8, teams will make the NFL play-offs. Personally, I think more is always better. With 17 games, it almost guarantees a team will need to have 9 wins to get in.

[Doc Brown]

17 minutes ago, CSBill said:

 

In the big picture, who cares? Why would anyone be mad at that?

 

If nothing, the current unbelievable realities of life we are all facing, remind us of the value of sports as a distraction, but also remind of that there are far more important things in life to worry about than how many 8-8, or 9-8, teams will make the NFL play-offs. Personally, I think more is always better. With 17 games, it almost guarantees a team will need to have 9 wins to get in.

Not really.  We're all going to die anyways (it's just a matter of which order) so I want my "distraction" to be a high quality product.  They'll be plenty of 8-9 teams who make the playoffs in the new format.  Then they'll play pry a 13-3 team that deserves a bye because of their terrific regular season making their path to the Super Bowl easier.  Instead, they now have to play three single elimination games where one bad game and they're out.  Both adding a #7 seed and a #2 seed not getting a bye devalues the importance of the regular season.

[Mark Vader]

22 hours ago, Virgil said:

I would like them to have the 3rd preseason game be at a neutral site.  Maybe a college facility.  
 

I’d hate to be the season ticket holder stuck with 2 home games like before. 

This is what I want to know.

 

Is the NFL going to stick it to half of the teams season ticket holders? Force them to pay full price for two meaningless games?

[Boatdrinks]

2 minutes ago, Mark Vader said:

This is what I want to know.

 

Is the NFL going to stick it to half of the teams season ticket holders? Force them to pay full price for two meaningless games?

That will never change imo. Teams have done this forever, so I see nothing that will affect this price gouging policy from continuing. 

[KD in CA]

22 minutes ago, Mark Vader said:

This is what I want to know.

 

Is the NFL going to stick it to half of the teams season ticket holders? Force them to pay full price for two meaningless games?

 

Yes, but now it'll only be every other year.

[Warcodered]

 

[Punching Bag]

6 hours ago, Mark Vader said:

This is what I want to know.

 

Is the NFL going to stick it to half of the teams season ticket holders? Force them to pay full price for two meaningless games?

 

Funny how some complain about paying for preseason games while others say prices are too low, raise them to kick out the beer swilling rabble (even though wine and chesse are rarely advertised on NFL).