muck Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 18 game schedule w/ two bye weeks for each team Rookie wage scale / slotting, with fixed contract lengths based on the round you were drafted Lifetime health benefits for all players who play one down in the NFL No real change to the RFA / Franchise player system Defined team penalties for poor behavior for players / staff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennykravitz2004 Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Not certain on the %, but I'll add owners get the extra $1 billion off the top in exchange for a larger slice after for the players. Don't agree about lifetime bene's for only 1 down played though... I would say it accrues in some fashion, maybe with rules in place for debilitating injuries (see: Carter, Ki-Jana). Plus, in some cases, might be kind of hard to prove an injury was sustained on-field when it could just as easily have been at home. I pulled that out from so deep, my throat hurts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 free ice cream to all players after each game. regardless of if they win or lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 hope you're wrong about the 18 game schedule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpholmes Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 hope you're wrong about the 18 game schedule. I hope so too, but it's really the only bartering chip the NFLPA has to fight for lifetime health benefits. In the end, I think they'll give in to the 18 game season to get their health benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Every presser or interview Goodell has made from last year to now when asked about a new CBA has started out with "An 18 game schedule.....". There is no deal without it..period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 I dont see an 18 game schedule, but I do see expansion of the playoffs to 8 teams from each division, no byes. I also think that the owners back off the extra 1 billion off the top and get something closer to 250-400 million off the top instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 hope you're wrong about the 18 game schedule. And I hope he's right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Every presser or interview Goodell has made from last year to now when asked about a new CBA has started out with "An 18 game schedule.....". There is no deal without it..period. think that's nuts. could be a bargaining chip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Not certain on the %, but I'll add owners get the extra $1 billion off the top in exchange for a larger slice after for the players. Don't agree about lifetime bene's for only 1 down played though... I would say it accrues in some fashion, maybe with rules in place for debilitating injuries (see: Carter, Ki-Jana). Plus, in some cases, might be kind of hard to prove an injury was sustained on-field when it could just as easily have been at home. I pulled that out from so deep, my throat hurts. Agreed No way the players will get lifetime bene's for 1 down, nor should they. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Every presser or interview Goodell has made from last year to now when asked about a new CBA has started out with "An 18 game schedule.....". There is no deal without it..period. They may be saying that, but it's about money and nothing else! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HutOne Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 They may be saying that, but it's about money and nothing else! Absolutely , Go from making $9 billion in revenue to $0 and there will be a deal done. Especially with the $4 billion from the tv rights being put in limbo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 OK, it's official. I am now absolutely 100% on the owners side in terms of the 18 game deal. Nobody really loses with this. Even though I'd prefer that it not happen, it's not like I'll be bummed about having two more weeks of football to watch. So, from a fan's perspective, I'd think that everyone is either totally for it or, at very least, will not be dragged kicking and screaming to the couch for another two weeks of meaningful football. Obviously, those with season tickets have to be totally in favor since they're the ones stuck with the pre-season tickets they have to buy. As far as the players, they should make more money, so why are they pissed? Their % is of gate, TV, and merchandise, all of which go up with two more games per year. So, they work more and make more. And, if you think about it, since they should technically get paid commensurate with the extra two games each year, they get to cheat time. Basically, they squeeze 9 years worth of earning into 8 years. Also, unless camp starts earlier, they actually get paid more for the same amount of work. Mind you, I understand that "more" is a relative term because, once they give back whatever % of revenue they're going to need to for the new CBA to be agreed upon, they may be lucky to be making the same amount they were before despite playing 2 extra games. But these are separate issues, because you have to think the % is going down regardless of what happens with the 18 game deal. So, it's either make about what they were making and play 2 more games or make less than what they were making and play the same amount of games. Why is either any worse than the other? And, as I've said before, the rookie thing is a no brainer. I'm also tired of news stories talking about "what they're going to do with the money saved from a rookie salary structure". Assuming some % of revenue thing is in place, it's pretty damned obvious what they're going to do with it. They're going to spend everything up to that number on the other players. They have no choice. That's the whole point of the % revenue deal. Which also makes the unions counter of adding more roster spots a bit odd. All you're doing is diluting the money the owners are contractually obligated to spend on the players to more players. Sure, it costs the owners more, because adding more roster spots means more equipment and costs, but that's not ending up in the player's pockets (unless things like team meals and perdiems are not included in the % the owners have to spend on the players). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 OK, it's official. I am now absolutely 100% on the owners side in terms of the 18 game deal. Nobody really loses with this. Even though I'd prefer that it not happen, it's not like I'll be bummed about having two more weeks of football to watch. So, from a fan's perspective, I'd think that everyone is either totally for it or, at very least, will not be dragged kicking and screaming to the couch for another two weeks of meaningful football. Obviously, those with season tickets have to be totally in favor since they're the ones stuck with the pre-season tickets they have to buy. As far as the players, they should make more money, so why are they pissed? Their % is of gate, TV, and merchandise, all of which go up with two more games per year. So, they work more and make more. And, if you think about it, since they should technically get paid commensurate with the extra two games each year, they get to cheat time. Basically, they squeeze 9 years worth of earning into 8 years. Also, unless camp starts earlier, they actually get paid more for the same amount of work. Mind you, I understand that "more" is a relative term because, once they give back whatever % of revenue they're going to need to for the new CBA to be agreed upon, they may be lucky to be making the same amount they were before despite playing 2 extra games. But these are separate issues, because you have to think the % is going down regardless of what happens with the 18 game deal. So, it's either make about what they were making and play 2 more games or make less than what they were making and play the same amount of games. Why is either any worse than the other? And, as I've said before, the rookie thing is a no brainer. I'm also tired of news stories talking about "what they're going to do with the money saved from a rookie salary structure". Assuming some % of revenue thing is in place, it's pretty damned obvious what they're going to do with it. They're going to spend everything up to that number on the other players. They have no choice. That's the whole point of the % revenue deal. Which also makes the unions counter of adding more roster spots a bit odd. All you're doing is diluting the money the owners are contractually obligated to spend on the players to more players. Sure, it costs the owners more, because adding more roster spots means more equipment and costs, but that's not ending up in the player's pockets (unless things like team meals and perdiems are not included in the % the owners have to spend on the players). why not just play 20 games? How about 30? it's more money for everyone, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Pimp Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 why not just play 20 games? How about 30? it's more money for everyone, right? Right now technically there are 4 preseason games and 16 regular season games so 20 total. Changing the makeup of the 20 games is all that's happening. Since the owners want 18 regular season games, the players should just agree to it with the stipulation that they get an extra bye week. Is that so difficult? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajfalcone Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 (edited) Health benefits is really the huge one here. I think the players realize the importance of it now as to before just wanting higher contracts. It will be an incredible underwriting and possibly both players and owners will need to pay into it. All players will receive a basic benefit and additional benefits will be offered but at a fee that the players decide to have to pay additional for. Kinda like extended warranty. Really the contracts were so escalated as protection against injury, the need to make as much as possible before wrecking my career to injury. Now with the health benefits to compensate incase of injury, the salaries may come down. just my thoughts. Edited March 8, 2011 by ajfalcone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 why not just play 20 games? How about 30? it's more money for everyone, right? I was actually thinking about 98, playing 2x per week, leaving just enough time for the play-offs before they started, but 30's a start. Dude, instead of needlessly exaggerating for effect, why not argue the problems with swapping 2 pre-season games for 2 regular season ones. Right now technically there are 4 preseason games and 16 regular season games so 20 total. Changing the makeup of the 20 games is all that's happening. Since the owners want 18 regular season games, the players should just agree to it with the stipulation that they get an extra bye week. Is that so difficult? The thing is, the 2nd bye week is also a money maker because it gives them a longer TV schedule. Right now, we all spend 17 weeks a year watching regular season football. For many, they still watch even when their team is on the bye. Adding two regular season games pushes that to 19 weeks, adding a bye pushes it to 20 weeks of dudes on the couch watching football. More eyes, more money. Again, I'm not even among those who is enthusiastic about pushing for more football and don't actually watch it every week. But even I'm a bit bummed when it's over. They're already playing into winter as it is, what's the big deal about the season ending in mid February instead of the 1st week? But I wonder why the players would want the extra bye week? It does, after all, cut into their off-season vacation. More importantly, why would the owners even hesitate to give them that 2nd bye week if they asked for it. None the less, like Jackass so astutely pointed out, they can only go so far and should try to keep it under 30 games if they can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 But I wonder why the players would want the extra bye week? It does, after all, cut into their off-season vacation. More importantly, why would the owners even hesitate to give them that 2nd bye week if they asked for it. If an 18 game schedule comes to pass, swapping 2 preseason games for 2 regular season games, anyone that thinks this does not mean more risk on the part of the players is delusional. The real players, not the ones struggling to make a squad, but the ones we watch the came for do not play that much in the preseason, and then not necessarily at full speed. They are trying to prepare for the season, work on timing and execution, and mostly to stay healthy. With 2 more real games they add maybe 10% more real risk into that schedule. The second bye week is then obvious. Players could play up to 21 weeks of real football. It would be very difficult to do that without any kind of a break to heal up. IMO that's what the 2 extra roster spots and extra bye week are for....so the players as a group can take the punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I can, I suppose, see the angle of well-paid veterans not wanting to play two more games. It would open them up to injury more (in theory with 10% more meaningful games potentially) and they already are making a lot of coin. But what I never see batted about is how much better 18 games will be for the new and even average players. I am not so sure that players lose much money if any considering the higher revenue coming in and their getting some percentage of that. But the average NFL career is just a shade over 3 seasons. For every 4 year guy there is a 2 year, etc. Overall, for most players the career is very short and playing two more games per year increases the chance that they get to play and make a mark. If it increments up injuries, that is just more players that get a shot. I'm not saying it is a huge boon or anything, but it would benefit those players who would otherwise have an average or shorter career. I have not heard much about increasing roster spots either overall or per game but those would be a positive not only for players but for the NFLPA with more members and agents with more clients. And besides, no one on the Packers are complaining about playing in 20 meaningful games last year. And injuries decimated their squad but did not matter. I personally like 16 games but if they go to 18 games, it is not without some positives to the players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 If an 18 game schedule comes to pass, swapping 2 preseason games for 2 regular season games, anyone that thinks this does not mean more risk on the part of the players is delusional. The real players, not the ones struggling to make a squad, but the ones we watch the came for do not play that much in the preseason, and then not necessarily at full speed. They are trying to prepare for the season, work on timing and execution, and mostly to stay healthy. With 2 more real games they add maybe 10% more real risk into that schedule. The second bye week is then obvious. Players could play up to 21 weeks of real football. It would be very difficult to do that without any kind of a break to heal up. IMO that's what the 2 extra roster spots and extra bye week are for....so the players as a group can take the punishment. Frankly, I am fully aware of the fact that they're more exposed to injury with the 2 extra games, which is why I'm not into it because I think it will dilute the product. However, as far as the NFL is concerned, that's a non-issue because it's not going to mean I'll stop watching. However, this should only be an issue to the players if they were truly just playing those extra games for no extra money, but since those games will bring increased revenue and that revenue is being shared by them, they'll make as much per game for those 2 extra as they do for the 16 they'll play if that proposal doesn't go through. So why do they care? And since both age and injury play against a player, they get to cheat one of those two by increasing their chances to earn each year by a few more games. As for the bye week, I do understand that they'd want another break in the season (even though it cuts into their vacation). My main point was why that would be contested at all by the owners. Once again, that's one more week of football on TV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 We heard all the same arguments before when the schedule has been increased. When is enough, enough? When they start going over that 20 game mark IMO. Until then, its going to be business as usual. Are there going to be more injuries? 100% yes. Is there going to be more revenue? 100% yes. How the players are treated after there careers due to increased playing time is the issue at hand and is probably the factor that is being debated right now. Don't kid yourself if you don't think there will be a game increase. The owners, and in principle Goodell, have already decided this is the way to go so that is no longer the debate. I would be shocked...absolutely shocked, if the 18 game schedule was not a reality when this is all said and done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Something that hasn't been brought up, to my knowledge, is the economic impact of the NFL cities themselves if there is no football this season. I know here in San Diego, that it would be pretty big. Imagine cities like Green Bay, Chicago, Dallas ...I could go on and on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 As for the bye week, I do understand that they'd want another break in the season (even though it cuts into their vacation). My main point was why that would be contested at all by the owners. Once again, that's one more week of football on TV. I would assume that the cost of a bye week is significant They are have a death grip on their dead presidents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 However, this should only be an issue to the players if they were truly just playing those extra games for no extra money, but since those games will bring increased revenue and that revenue is being shared by them, they'll make as much per game for those 2 extra as they do for the 16 they'll play if that proposal doesn't go through. So why do they care? And since both age and injury play against a player, they get to cheat one of those two by increasing their chances to earn each year by a few more games. This is a big assumption! Since the players will make less of the pie, they stand to not make any extra money for 2 more games. As I stated before, the only reason why this is in place is so the owners have a bargaining chip to increase their percentage of the overall shared revenue. If they get 18 games, then I would actually be surprised if the players make more money than they would a 16 games schedule. If they don't get 18 games and it remains at 16 games, then the players overall share will drop as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I would assume that the cost of a bye week is significant They are have a death grip on their dead presidents Couldn't that be offset by increased TV revenues associated with one more week of broadcast? This is a big assumption! Since the players will make less of the pie, they stand to not make any extra money for 2 more games. As I stated before, the only reason why this is in place is so the owners have a bargaining chip to increase their percentage of the overall shared revenue. If they get 18 games, then I would actually be surprised if the players make more money than they would a 16 games schedule. If they don't get 18 games and it remains at 16 games, then the players overall share will drop as well. I understand that, overall, they're likely going to likely add 2 games and not make any more money. But that's because they're going to make a smaller cut of the profits regardless. I thought I explained that rather clearly. Let's just pretend that the new deal is 50% rather than 60%. Then, they add 2 games and that results in a larger pie to split. Say $10.5 billion instead of $9. (And for the sake of simplicity, we're going to forget the bit the owners get to shave off the top before the split). So, before the deal, they were getting 60% of $9 billion which is 5.4 billion and afterward they're getting half of 10.5 or 5.25. Oh no! They're making less money but working 2 more games! Right, but the change in revenue split is going to happen regardless. So, what you really need to compare is the new % of 16 games worth of revenue vs the new % of 18 games worth of revenue. So, the real difference is 4.5 billion vs 5.25. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.