The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,550 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
All credible media outlets reporting the NFL owners approved the terms of the next collective bargaining agreement, now to the player reps as the next step.

The major changes appear to be one more playoff team in each conference, a 17-game season, and higher percentage of league revenue to players (48.5% from 47%). The 1.5% might not seem large, but as big as the NFL is, gonna be north of a billion dollars over the life of the agreement.

Much has been made about injuries due to more games. I suppose the idea is, just based on statistics careers will be shorter, but you make more money per game so it evens out.

Superstars like JJ Watt coming out against it seem disingenuious. He's made his many millions and only cares about prolonging his career to get the next millions. The minimum salaries and cap would go up significantly, so the bottom tier guys or average guys will benefit. At least in theory.

I get the point that the risk of injury is a serious, important topic. But, playing football for a living is a choice. If you are concerned about CTE or needing a walker later in life, then do something else.

The owners said we want to add one more game in the regular season as part of our product. Then players said that increases our risk of injury, so we need more compensation to cover that risk. That increase was negotiated into the agreement.

There were other perks, less offseason work requirements, they won't test for weed anymore (the media doesn't spell that out it detail), less preseason games.

Seems to me that very highly paid superstars that will have multiple big contracts over a long career should not be so vocal in their thoughts when its the guys playing special teams and trying to stick long enough to gain pension eligibility whose opinions should matter the most.

Owners are already filthy rich, had to be to buy the team. Making money out the whazoo. The players "pay the price" so to speak, but what else could they do and earn that same money?

Those like Kapernik's fiancee who tweeted that the owners are like "slave owners" is insane. If you don't like the terms, don't play.

The NFL wants more, so looks like they got with the players and figured out how to share that bigger pie, plus other perks.

Thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,336 Posts
I think 16 regular games per year is plenty. If they go to 17 games, the goal is to get to 18. If they add a game or two, then teams should be able to expand their rosters by at least five players, which I’m sure the owners are against.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,560 Posts
The players are getting a pay cut. with the 47% per 16 games they got 2.9% of revenue per game. With the 48.5 per 17 games they only get 2.85% of revenue per game. It may very well add up to billions over the course of the contract but not in the players pockets. The extra playoff team means more games for those that make the playoffs. Waugh!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,550 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I think 16 regular games per year is plenty. If they go to 17 games, the goal is to get to 18. If they add a game or two, then teams should be able to expand their rosters by at least five players, which I’m sure the owners are against.
Reports said two more roster spots and two more practice squad spots. 64 more jobs and 64 more jobs-in-waiting. Not sure if the weekly pay for practice squad ($8000??) goes up or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,550 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
The players are getting a pay cut. with the 47% per 16 games they got 2.9% of revenue per game. With the 48.5 per 17 games they only get 2.85% of revenue per game. It may very well add up to billions over the course of the contract but not in the players pockets. The extra playoff team means more games for those that make the playoffs. Waugh!

Strictly on percentages that might be the case, but with a longer season that will make the TV and streaming rights that much more valuable and the revenue-per-game is going to go way, way up. If today every game is worth 10 million, and this change makes them worth 12 million, rather get 2.85% of 12 million than 2.9% of 10 million.



The extra playoff teams means one extra game for two teams in each conference, the extra team, and the #2 seed no longer has a bye. Interestingly these big-name players who are against it don't complain about the possibility of three or four extra games to win the Super Bowl. And the pay for those games is set by the league, it is not based on the player contract. That is split into 17 weeks of game checks. That is another change I saw somewhere, the salaries are no longer "game checks" but spread out over the entire year like any other salaried person. Don't know if that report is accurate.



The NFL will go to an 18 week season someday, but it will stay at 17 games with two byes. If it ever goes to 18 games, I can see that including three bye weeks. TV would have no problem with a 21 week NFL season and a month of playoffs. Start mid September and go through end of February.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,560 Posts
I rather have the 2.9 of the increased amount. Better than giving the owners more. Why the cut? If 2.9 was fair for 16 games why is it not fair for 17 games? Waugh! Waugh!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,717 Posts
Maybe I'm not the brightest bulb in the pack, but how will they work a 17 game season? Will all 32 teams be forced to play a neutral site (Mexico or London) game? Btw, they players association reps voted 6 to 5 to reject the proposed agreement and voted not to put it out to the players to vote on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,550 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Maybe I'm not the brightest bulb in the pack, but how will they work a 17 game season? Will all 32 teams be forced to play a neutral site (Mexico or London) game? Btw, they players association reps voted 6 to 5 to reject the proposed agreement and voted not to put it out to the players to vote on.

My understanding is that teams will alternate years between 8 and 9 home games regular season, and with only 3 preseason games, if you have 8 regular season home games you get 2 preseason games, else it would be 9 and 1. Every team would have 10 home dates.


The proposed CBA is supposed to still go to all the players to vote on next week. There is no requirement for the eleven on the executive committee or the 32 player reps to vote on the deal or not.


The CBA will pass if more than 50% of the players who submit votes vote "yes". Reports state about 2100 players paid dues to the NFLPA last year so they would be eligible to vote (I sure hope AB live streams his vote!). However, if only 1000 players submit votes, then only 501 yes votes are needed to pass.


Minimum salaries go up by 20% immediately and continue to increase after that. Be aware that a large percentage (some reports said more than 50%) of players play on the minimum salary. Now some may get an extra signing bonus on top of that. Opinions of very highly paid superstars aside, how do you think a guy like Duck Hodges or Deon Cain are going to vote? They made $500K (prorated for the number of games on the roster) last year. Up to $600K? If I can stick one more year I get $100K more for one more game? Sign me up!



At the end of the day, the owners are going to win. Owning an NFL team is not their primary means of income, it is their hobby. The vast majority of players would not be able to earn what they do if they did not play pro football. Everyone knows that. If they take care o' their chicken and their mentals, they can do what they want when they retire.



One final thing to note, it;s not just increasing the player share of revenue to 48.5%. There are escalators in there that take it even higher if the league hits certain revenue thresholds. So even the owners recognized that as they are squeezing dollars out of the udder of the Money Cow, at some point it is prudent to kick a few more ounces of that Money Milk to the players.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,601 Posts
Guess trying to get a league going in Europe isn't going so well so they will do it by adding more teams here.
it's already a 17 week season with every team getting a by.
Having more teams make the playoffs will make it more like the hockey playoffs where ---- poor teams can make it in.

Hope the owners also toughened the definition and enforcement for off field antics and domestic violence issues.
Owners need to reinforce the players represent the team's they play for and inadvertently the owners themselves, and if a team cuts a player, no matter how great he is for knocking his wife out at a casino they enter the Colin Kaepernick protocol and no other team picks them up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,677 Posts
The whole reason behind adding a game is to inch it toward an 18 game season and eventually have every team play 2 games out of country....Europe, Mexico, and maybe even Canada. The NFL hasn't giving up on the export market yet! Too much money to be made. The demand is there and they will get those $$$s.

The extra playoff game should add to the level of end of regular season play.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39,294 Posts
Dont watch them anymore after the National Anthem stunt so I could give a rats ### about em. Bunch of cry babys for sure. :turkey_track:
I watch the NFL games every chance I get. I can never understand why Americans, who should support free speech rights, want to try to squash a person’s right to speak freely. Oppression. One of the reasons for the revolutionary war.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,601 Posts
Remember the blow back and outrage when the Olympians wore black gloves and held up clinched black fists? I am all about individuals rights to express their whatever but in the proper context.
But these arrogant players are not doing it as individuals, they are displaying their views based on their celerity status and doing it on the companies dime.
When they are wearing that uniform the only thing they should be representing is the teams they play for and only displaying the talents they are very well compensated for.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top