nyg2
Starter
Posts: 4,680
|
Post by nyg2 on Feb 21, 2020 10:37:45 GMT -5
For all of you who haven't been watching this matter closely the NFL owners approved the terms of a potential new CBA between the league and the NFL Players Association. Here are some key elements of the new agreement:
1. Moving to a 17-game regular season 2. Expand the playoff field to 14 teams starting in 2020 3. Players receive 48 percent of total revenue or 48.5 if a 17-game season is approved. (It was 47% under the previous agreement) 4. Commissioner Roger Goodell would have authority only over integrity of game matters. Personal conduct violations would go to a neutral arbitrator. 5. Fifth-year options would be fully guaranteed and tied to performance, not draft position. 6. Penalties would be reduced for players who test positive for THC, eliminating any game suspensions strictly for positive tests. The testing window for THC would also be narrowed from four months to two weeks at the start of training camp, and the nanogram limit would be increased from 35 to 150.
Players have begun tweeting about the so called proposed agreement and none of them were praising the new agreement. For all the optimism there was about a potential deal getting done before the new league year, there is a strong possibility that it won't get done.
I'm personally not in favor of having a 17-game season or expanding the the playoffs from 12 to 14 nfl teams. I think that if you expand to 14 teams where you now have 6 teams playing during the wildcard while one team has a bye your giving an unfair advantage to that team. Moreover, you also increase the likelihood of mediocre 8-8 and 7-9 teams of getting into the playoffs a place that is reserved for all the best of the best.
What are your guys thoughts on the matter?
|
|
nyg2
Starter
Posts: 4,680
|
Post by nyg2 on Feb 21, 2020 10:38:31 GMT -5
Just what some of the players have had to say with respect to the new CBA.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Hulk on Feb 21, 2020 10:44:25 GMT -5
Lock out!!!!
I'm trying out for the Giants as a scab player........Get used to the XFL boys.....That will be the NFL roster during a lockout.
I've already informed my boss of my intentions and I will begin training this month...I'm represented by Roc Nation if anyone is interested.
|
|
|
Post by Fletch842 on Feb 21, 2020 11:27:28 GMT -5
I don't know how much more the players expect, they are receiving improvements in almost every area of complaint. I think the 17 game season is coming one way or another, and expansion of the playoffs brings in a ton of new money. It will be interesting to see where the eventual deal ends up at.
|
|
nyg2
Starter
Posts: 4,680
|
Post by nyg2 on Feb 21, 2020 11:59:09 GMT -5
I don't know how much more the players expect, they are receiving improvements in almost every area of complaint. I think the 17 game season is coming one way or another, and expansion of the playoffs brings in a ton of new money. It will be interesting to see where the eventual deal ends up at. I think they're concerned with having to play more games and putting their bodies in harms way. A majority of the players (or at least the players who have spoken up and gave their thoughts on the CBA) feel that this new agreement is not as player friendly as it should be. I'm personally against a 17-game season and an expansion of the playoffs for the reasons I posted above.
|
|
nyg2
Starter
Posts: 4,680
|
Post by nyg2 on Feb 21, 2020 12:00:17 GMT -5
Lock out!!!! I'm trying out for the Giants as a scab player........Get used to the XFL boys.....That will be the NFL roster during a lockout. I've already informed my boss of my intentions and I will begin training this month...I'm represented by Roc Nation if anyone is interested. Careful not to bust a hip out while running a slant out there.
|
|
|
Post by Morehead State on Feb 21, 2020 12:01:03 GMT -5
Just what some of the players have had to say with respect to the new CBA. It's easy for rich, established players, who don't need the money, to reject a proposes CBA. Maybe the special teams guys who have just a few years to play might think differently.
|
|
|
Post by TheAnalyst on Feb 21, 2020 12:02:14 GMT -5
For all of you who haven't been watching this matter closely the NFL owners approved the terms of a potential new CBA between the league and the NFL Players Association. Here are some key elements of the new agreement: 1. Moving to a 17-game regular season 2. Expand the playoff field to 14 teams starting in 2020 3. Players receive 48 percent of total revenue or 48.5 if a 17-game season is approved. (It was 47% under the previous agreement) 4. Commissioner Roger Goodell would have authority only over integrity of game matters. Personal conduct violations would go to a neutral arbitrator. 5. Fifth-year options would be fully guaranteed and tied to performance, not draft position. 6. Penalties would be reduced for players who test positive for THC, eliminating any game suspensions strictly for positive tests. The testing window for THC would also be narrowed from four months to two weeks at the start of training camp, and the nanogram limit would be increased from 35 to 150. Players have begun tweeting about the so called proposed agreement and none of them were praising the new agreement. For all the optimism there was about a potential deal getting done before the new league year, there is a strong possibility that it won't get done. I'm personally not in favor of having a 17-game season or expanding the the playoffs from 12 to 14 nfl teams. I think that if you expand to 14 teams where you now have 6 teams playing during the wildcard while one team has a bye your giving an unfair advantage to that team. Moreover, you also increase the likelihood of mediocre 8-8 and 7-9 teams of getting into the playoffs a place that is reserved for all the best of the best. What are your guys thoughts on the matter? Thats the whole point though. The #1 seed should get an advantage. Thats the reward for being the best team. Im ok with the 14 teams in. The 17 games is weird. Is it an alternating Home / Away game every other year? What teams is that extra game against? And is it based on how good you were the year before like the outside of divisional games now a days? Id rather them just move to 18 and give an extra bye week and increase the roster size.
|
|
|
Post by Delicreep on Feb 21, 2020 12:10:40 GMT -5
Just what some of the players have had to say with respect to the new CBA. It's easy for rich, established players, who don't need the money, to reject a proposes CBA. Maybe the special teams guys who have just a few years to play might think differently. Suppose you are a fringe player...maybe in your later years and earning the league minimum. That's a $90,000 salary bump for this upcoming season. How many guys are out here thinking, "I may not be here the year after"?
|
|
|
Post by infinite420 on Feb 21, 2020 12:16:08 GMT -5
For all of you who haven't been watching this matter closely the NFL owners approved the terms of a potential new CBA between the league and the NFL Players Association. Here are some key elements of the new agreement: 1. Moving to a 17-game regular season 2. Expand the playoff field to 14 teams starting in 2020 3. Players receive 48 percent of total revenue or 48.5 if a 17-game season is approved. (It was 47% under the previous agreement) 4. Commissioner Roger Goodell would have authority only over integrity of game matters. Personal conduct violations would go to a neutral arbitrator. 5. Fifth-year options would be fully guaranteed and tied to performance, not draft position. 6. Penalties would be reduced for players who test positive for THC, eliminating any game suspensions strictly for positive tests. The testing window for THC would also be narrowed from four months to two weeks at the start of training camp, and the nanogram limit would be increased from 35 to 150. Players have begun tweeting about the so called proposed agreement and none of them were praising the new agreement. For all the optimism there was about a potential deal getting done before the new league year, there is a strong possibility that it won't get done. I'm personally not in favor of having a 17-game season or expanding the the playoffs from 12 to 14 nfl teams. I think that if you expand to 14 teams where you now have 6 teams playing during the wildcard while one team has a bye your giving an unfair advantage to that team. Moreover, you also increase the likelihood of mediocre 8-8 and 7-9 teams of getting into the playoffs a place that is reserved for all the best of the best. What are your guys thoughts on the matter? At face value, it seems pretty fair. Players give up a bit with the extended season, owners give up 1% and some contractual issues, which seems fair in regards to the 5th year option. Players should have shot at the stars with the THC proposal and asked for no penalties, and compromised to their origpnal proposal, increased thresholds, but I understand not wanting to make that a sticking point.
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Feb 21, 2020 12:24:32 GMT -5
IMO: For the majority. The player's time is a small window . For most 3 to 4 years. ( The rank and file. 2 thirds to 3 quarters of the players in the league ) They are not going to compromise a month or season of earning potential to placate to some big income's box of donuts request. That is the main problem with the players' stance on any CBA. 1 quarter of the league makes 75% of the money. The rest of the league does not. Why the owners will always have the upper hand. The players will always be divided between the have and the have nots. That is why their union is weak.
|
|
|
Post by giantlegacy on Feb 21, 2020 12:25:58 GMT -5
For all of you who haven't been watching this matter closely the NFL owners approved the terms of a potential new CBA between the league and the NFL Players Association. Here are some key elements of the new agreement: 1. Moving to a 17-game regular season 2. Expand the playoff field to 14 teams starting in 2020 3. Players receive 48 percent of total revenue or 48.5 if a 17-game season is approved. (It was 47% under the previous agreement) 4. Commissioner Roger Goodell would have authority only over integrity of game matters. Personal conduct violations would go to a neutral arbitrator. 5. Fifth-year options would be fully guaranteed and tied to performance, not draft position. 6. Penalties would be reduced for players who test positive for THC, eliminating any game suspensions strictly for positive tests. The testing window for THC would also be narrowed from four months to two weeks at the start of training camp, and the nanogram limit would be increased from 35 to 150. Players have begun tweeting about the so called proposed agreement and none of them were praising the new agreement. For all the optimism there was about a potential deal getting done before the new league year, there is a strong possibility that it won't get done. I'm personally not in favor of having a 17-game season or expanding the the playoffs from 12 to 14 nfl teams. I think that if you expand to 14 teams where you now have 6 teams playing during the wildcard while one team has a bye your giving an unfair advantage to that team. Moreover, you also increase the likelihood of mediocre 8-8 and 7-9 teams of getting into the playoffs a place that is reserved for all the best of the best. What are your guys thoughts on the matter? At face value, it seems pretty fair. Players give up a bit with the extended season, owners give up 1% and some contractual issues, which seems fair in regards to the 5th year option. Players should have shot at the stars with the THC proposal and asked for no penalties, and compromised to their origpnal proposal, increased thresholds, but I understand not wanting to make that a sticking point. Considering how many players probably retired early because THC helped with some of their issues (Harvin's cluster headaches)I like this idea and once it becomes fully legal here in the states there should be a clause that immediately takes it off the banned substance list
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on Feb 21, 2020 12:38:30 GMT -5
I don't know how much more the players expect, they are receiving improvements in almost every area of complaint. I think the 17 game season is coming one way or another, and expansion of the playoffs brings in a ton of new money. It will be interesting to see where the eventual deal ends up at. In the 2006 CBA the players got 59% of the revenue (less a cool $1BN profit for the owners). They now get 47% and the owners want to increase the number of games while increasing the payroll percentage to 48.5% if the players agree to go to 17 games and 48% if not? (I believe those are the parameters). Other than internal class warfare - which I assume the owners created years ago for just such circumstances - what could possibly stand in the way of this incredibly generous deal getting done?
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on Feb 21, 2020 12:39:51 GMT -5
For all of you who haven't been watching this matter closely the NFL owners approved the terms of a potential new CBA between the league and the NFL Players Association. Here are some key elements of the new agreement: 1. Moving to a 17-game regular season 2. Expand the playoff field to 14 teams starting in 2020 3. Players receive 48 percent of total revenue or 48.5 if a 17-game season is approved. (It was 47% under the previous agreement) 4. Commissioner Roger Goodell would have authority only over integrity of game matters. Personal conduct violations would go to a neutral arbitrator. 5. Fifth-year options would be fully guaranteed and tied to performance, not draft position. 6. Penalties would be reduced for players who test positive for THC, eliminating any game suspensions strictly for positive tests. The testing window for THC would also be narrowed from four months to two weeks at the start of training camp, and the nanogram limit would be increased from 35 to 150. Players have begun tweeting about the so called proposed agreement and none of them were praising the new agreement. For all the optimism there was about a potential deal getting done before the new league year, there is a strong possibility that it won't get done. I'm personally not in favor of having a 17-game season or expanding the the playoffs from 12 to 14 nfl teams. I think that if you expand to 14 teams where you now have 6 teams playing during the wildcard while one team has a bye your giving an unfair advantage to that team. Moreover, you also increase the likelihood of mediocre 8-8 and 7-9 teams of getting into the playoffs a place that is reserved for all the best of the best. What are your guys thoughts on the matter? Thats the whole point though. The #1 seed should get an advantage. Thats the reward for being the best team. Im ok with the 14 teams in. The 17 games is weird. Is it an alternating Home / Away game every other year? What teams is that extra game against? And is it based on how good you were the year before like the outside of divisional games now a days? Id rather them just move to 18 and give an extra bye week and increase the roster size. It's a slow play. The owners want 18 they just don't think they can get there in one fell swoop.
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on Feb 21, 2020 12:41:52 GMT -5
It's easy for rich, established players, who don't need the money, to reject a proposes CBA. Maybe the special teams guys who have just a few years to play might think differently. Suppose you are a fringe player...maybe in your later years and earning the league minimum. That's a $90,000 salary bump for this upcoming season. How many guys are out here thinking, "I may not be here the year after"? I'm shocked that you seem to believe the owners could have seen this coming and have been operating exactly as expected because if it. Shocked I say.
|
|
Merc
Special Teams
Posts: 1,696
|
Post by Merc on Feb 21, 2020 12:42:40 GMT -5
If I remember right, the extra game decreases the preseason by one game. The net effect is an increase in $ with not much in player impact. Some of the starters may have to play more of the game as it won't be a preseason game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2020 12:46:44 GMT -5
Thats the whole point though. The #1 seed should get an advantage. Thats the reward for being the best team. Im ok with the 14 teams in. The 17 games is weird. Is it an alternating Home / Away game every other year? What teams is that extra game against? And is it based on how good you were the year before like the outside of divisional games now a days? Id rather them just move to 18 and give an extra bye week and increase the roster size. I never thought of the issues with who they would play that 17th game but making it 18 would offer the same issue I think. I have no issue with the added playoff team which would offset those years when a team with a better record then the a division winner doesn't get the chance to play. The other side of the argument might mean a 8-8 might get in which isn't terrible..
|
|
|
Post by TheAnalyst on Feb 21, 2020 12:53:51 GMT -5
Im ok with the 14 teams in. The 17 games is weird. Is it an alternating Home / Away game every other year? What teams is that extra game against? And is it based on how good you were the year before like the outside of divisional games now a days? Id rather them just move to 18 and give an extra bye week and increase the roster size. I never thought of the issues with who they would play that 17th game but making it 18 would offer the same issue I think. I have no issue with the added playoff team which would offset those years when a team with a better record then the a division winner doesn't get the chance to play. The other side of the argument might mean a 8-8 might get in which isn't terrible.. Yeah, but I dont see it consistently 8-8 or worse getting in. Take the NBA and NHL, who pull in losing teams all the time with 16 teams. Basically, Im ok with more playoff NFL football. I love it. But if more teams are in, there needs to be more advantage to being a higher seed. The #1 getting the bye works for me. MLB is trying this too, but stupidly said the #2 seed could "pick" the team they play against of the remaining 5 teams. Could you imagine the motivation of a team being "picked" to play you? No locker room bulletin board material needed after that slap to the face.
|
|
|
Post by Morehead State on Feb 21, 2020 12:55:30 GMT -5
I'm wondering how much this proposed CBA gives the commissioner power to ruin players' lives. Hopefully less than he has now.
|
|
|
Post by nick030567 on Feb 21, 2020 12:56:41 GMT -5
I think they should stick with 16 games, it's perfect. If it aint broke don't fix. No reason except for greed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2020 13:01:24 GMT -5
I never thought of the issues with who they would play that 17th game but making it 18 would offer the same issue I think. I have no issue with the added playoff team which would offset those years when a team with a better record then the a division winner doesn't get the chance to play. The other side of the argument might mean a 8-8 might get in which isn't terrible.. Yeah, but I dont see it consistently 8-8 or worse getting in. Take the NBA and NHL, who pull in losing teams all the time with 16 teams. Basically, Im ok with more playoff NFL football. I love it. But if more teams are in, there needs to be more advantage to being a higher seed. The #1 getting the bye works for me. MLB is trying this too, but stupidly said the #2 seed could "pick" the team they play against of the remaining 5 teams. Could you imagine the motivation of a team being "picked" to play you? No locker room bulletin board material needed after that slap to the face. I see it the same way. I would think every fan would want more playoff football..
|
|
|
Post by giantlegacy on Feb 21, 2020 13:08:51 GMT -5
Yeah, but I dont see it consistently 8-8 or worse getting in. Take the NBA and NHL, who pull in losing teams all the time with 16 teams. Basically, Im ok with more playoff NFL football. I love it. But if more teams are in, there needs to be more advantage to being a higher seed. The #1 getting the bye works for me. MLB is trying this too, but stupidly said the #2 seed could "pick" the team they play against of the remaining 5 teams. Could you imagine the motivation of a team being "picked" to play you? No locker room bulletin board material needed after that slap to the face. I see it the same way. I would think every fan would want more playoff football.. Remember when we were 10-6 in 2010 and watched a 7-9 team host a playoff game? 1 extra wild card eliminates something like this from happening (the 10-6 team watching a 7-9 team hosting a playoff game and instead participating)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2020 13:17:25 GMT -5
I see it the same way. I would think every fan would want more playoff football.. Remember when we were 10-6 in 2010 and watched a 7-9 team host a playoff game? 1 extra wild card eliminates something like this from happening (the 10-6 team watching a 7-9 team hosting a playoff game and instead participating) I also remember that they blew a big lead against the Eagles where a win would've given them a 2nd seed and a home playoff game against that 7-9 team!!
|
|
|
Post by giantlegacy on Feb 21, 2020 13:50:04 GMT -5
Remember when we were 10-6 in 2010 and watched a 7-9 team host a playoff game? 1 extra wild card eliminates something like this from happening (the 10-6 team watching a 7-9 team hosting a playoff game and instead participating) I also remember that they blew a big lead against the Eagles where a win would've given them a 2nd seed and a home playoff game against that 7-9 team!! I may or.may not remember this A lot of Jack Daniel's and a hole in the bathroom at the bar I may have watched this at happened that day
|
|
|
Post by Roosevelt on Feb 21, 2020 14:08:33 GMT -5
I truly don't give a crap how they divide the money. My only concern is over the integrity of the game which has been getting worse over time.
But that's okay because I'm not part of the age group the NFL is targeting any longer.
|
|
|
Post by nygiantsfan1029 on Feb 21, 2020 14:15:53 GMT -5
I don't know how much more the players expect, they are receiving improvements in almost every area of complaint. I think the 17 game season is coming one way or another, and expansion of the playoffs brings in a ton of new money. It will be interesting to see where the eventual deal ends up at. In the 2006 CBA the players got 59% of the revenue (less a cool $1BN profit for the owners). They now get 47% and the owners want to increase the number of games while increasing the payroll percentage to 48.5% if the players agree to go to 17 games and 48% if not? (I believe those are the parameters). Other than internal class warfare - which I assume the owners created years ago for just such circumstances - what could possibly stand in the way of this incredibly generous deal getting done? As a worker who has been without a contract the last 9 nine with the company I work for trying to screw the unions over I agree with the players. Adding an extra game the the season and another game to the playoffs is going to make the owners a ton of more money and they only want to increase the players money by one %.
|
|
|
Post by jb456 on Feb 21, 2020 14:25:25 GMT -5
For all of you who haven't been watching this matter closely the NFL owners approved the terms of a potential new CBA between the league and the NFL Players Association. Here are some key elements of the new agreement: 1. Moving to a 17-game regular season 2. Expand the playoff field to 14 teams starting in 2020 3. Players receive 48 percent of total revenue or 48.5 if a 17-game season is approved. (It was 47% under the previous agreement) 4. Commissioner Roger Goodell would have authority only over integrity of game matters. Personal conduct violations would go to a neutral arbitrator. 5. Fifth-year options would be fully guaranteed and tied to performance, not draft position. 6. Penalties would be reduced for players who test positive for THC, eliminating any game suspensions strictly for positive tests. The testing window for THC would also be narrowed from four months to two weeks at the start of training camp, and the nanogram limit would be increased from 35 to 150. Players have begun tweeting about the so called proposed agreement and none of them were praising the new agreement. For all the optimism there was about a potential deal getting done before the new league year, there is a strong possibility that it won't get done. I'm personally not in favor of having a 17-game season or expanding the the playoffs from 12 to 14 nfl teams. I think that if you expand to 14 teams where you now have 6 teams playing during the wildcard while one team has a bye your giving an unfair advantage to that team. Moreover, you also increase the likelihood of mediocre 8-8 and 7-9 teams of getting into the playoffs a place that is reserved for all the best of the best. What are your guys thoughts on the matter? Good summary but I believe you are drawing the wrong conclusions: 1) The 8-8 and 7-9 teams make it to the playoffs by winning their terrible division, not the wild card. 2) Expanding the playoffs from 12 to 14 teams is a good change since it makes being the #1 seed much more valuable. This change doesn't prolong the playoffs, it just adds 2 additional games to wildcard weekend. 3) Everything else is irrelevant to me since I don't care about Millionaires crying to Billionaires for more money or the inability of stupid players to give up smoking drugs to make millions of dollars.
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on Feb 21, 2020 14:31:29 GMT -5
In the 2006 CBA the players got 59% of the revenue (less a cool $1BN profit for the owners). They now get 47% and the owners want to increase the number of games while increasing the payroll percentage to 48.5% if the players agree to go to 17 games and 48% if not? (I believe those are the parameters). Other than internal class warfare - which I assume the owners created years ago for just such circumstances - what could possibly stand in the way of this incredibly generous deal getting done? As a worker who has been without a contract the last 9 nine with the company I work for trying to screw the unions over I agree with the players. Adding an extra game the the season and another game to the playoffs is going to make the owners a ton of more money and they only want to increase the players money by one %. I was being sarcastic. It's a shit deal for the players and the owners haven't even really begun to pit the haves vs have nots players against one another. That's when it will all start to get interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Fletch842 on Feb 21, 2020 14:32:52 GMT -5
I don't know how much more the players expect, they are receiving improvements in almost every area of complaint. I think the 17 game season is coming one way or another, and expansion of the playoffs brings in a ton of new money. It will be interesting to see where the eventual deal ends up at. I think they're concerned with having to play more games and putting their bodies in harms way. A majority of the players (or at least the players who have spoken up and gave their thoughts on the CBA) feel that this new agreement is not as player friendly as it should be. I'm personally against a 17-game season and an expansion of the playoffs for the reasons I posted above. Personally, I'm not in favor of the 17 games, but they will only play 3 pre-season, so they net to the same #. I'm ok with the expanded playoffs. In both cases, I think the owners really want both, and will get their way. As it stands now, it does not look like the players will pass it though.
|
|
|
Post by nygiantsfan1029 on Feb 21, 2020 14:38:31 GMT -5
As a worker who has been without a contract the last 9 nine with the company I work for trying to screw the unions over I agree with the players. Adding an extra game the the season and another game to the playoffs is going to make the owners a ton of more money and they only want to increase the players money by one %. I was being sarcastic. It's a shit deal for the players and the owners haven't even really begun to pit the haves vs have nots players against one another. That's when it will all start to get interesting. Dude I know you where I was just stating my opinion.
|
|