News: ESPN: Sources: Player reps divided over 17-game slate

[Stash]

I think it has to pass the 32 team reps first.

I got a distinctly different impression from what PFT has been saying. When the initial player rep group voted 7-6 against it (or whatever the number was), they mentioned that those votes ultimately didn't matter if the rank and file players decided to agree to it.

17 Games is just silly IMO. I don't think fans really want a 17th game. If your team is out of it you are ready for the season to be over. If your team is in it, you're ready for the playoffs. The fans don't want to pony up the extra cash for a 17th game either.

In terms of 'cash', aren't fans paying for that game as a preseason game anyway? Aren't season ticket holders forced to pay fornthise meaningless games too? At least now it means something.

My honest opinion is that they should have gone to 18 games with two bye weeks for each team. Take two of the meaningless preseason games away and replace them with games that count. That gives them 20 weeks for a regular season, essentially five months time. And then the playoffs and Super Bowl give them another month, so you have football for half the year.

But during those 18 games, players are required to be inactive for two of them, some time during the season. Either if injured, or if you've clinched, or if you're out of it, or if it's a weaker opponent. Team's choice. That preserves the current records for a 16-game season while giving the league the added games they want. And it also adds another element of strategy to the team's planning.

 

[atlantacowboy]

How about we go to an 18 game schedule but play only two fifteen minute halves? We should just lose the 2nd and 3rd quarter in the name of player safety. Think about how many guys were injured in those quarters alone!

 

[Kingofholland]

The tradition and history of having 40+ years of a 16 game schedule is what makes me oppose the change. 40 years of modern era records go out the window by adding a game.

Yes I get this has happened before, but for once don't mess with a good thing that has been in place for the majority of our adult lives.

 

[gjkoeppen]

If they are making enough from mechandise sales alone to profit, then they're coining it.

There are now some significant International TV deals that bring in a lot of revenue and Gamepass is extremely popular

Not forgetting that the stadium revenue from each game is many multiples of the cost of staging the games overseas.

Actually the article I read said that most of the live gate revenue went to the municipalities (London) for their expenses for having the games in their stadium. The NFL only gets a very small part of the live gate. Those municipalities are not part of the owners that share in the NFL profit so they have to get money to pay for all their expenses. The NFL only makes a very slim profit from the games they play in London.
.

 

[maryquality]

I hate that they want less "practice in pads" time in training camp!! It's already not enough!! Seems like this will just make the first few games of the season even more sloppy!! smdh

 

[gjkoeppen]

I got a distinctly different impression from what PFT has been saying. When the initial player rep group voted 7-6 against it (or whatever the number was), they mentioned that those votes ultimately didn't matter if the rank and file players decided to agree to it.



In terms of 'cash', aren't fans paying for that game as a preseason game anyway? Aren't season ticket holders forced to pay fornthise meaningless games too? At least now it means something.

My honest opinion is that they should have gone to 18 games with two bye weeks for each team. Take two of the meaningless preseason games away and replace them with games that count. That gives them 20 weeks for a regular season, essentially five months time. And then the playoffs and Super Bowl give them another month, so you have football for half the year.

But during those 18 games, players are required to be inactive for two of them, some time during the season. Either if injured, or if you've clinched, or if you're out of it, or if it's a weaker opponent. Team's choice. That preserves the current records for a 16-game season while giving the league the added games they want. And it also adds another element of strategy to the team's planning.

First off if the NFLPA reps didn't have a 2/3 majority what makes you so sure the the full body of NFLPA would get 2/3 majority? It doesn't get to the full members until the reps have a 2/3 majority. Yes it's what the full members vote that counts but it's got to get there first. The reps said they will use the same rules as what the full membership will have.

Second, I'm TOTALLY and VEHEMENTLY opposed to under ANY circumstance the league having ANY rule stipulating that any player that isn't injured or suspended can't play in ALL games on their schedule. That is a coaches call not the leagues. Lets use an example on how this is foolish. Lets say a team rests their starting left tackle in week 1 because it is against a team EVERYONE thinks it's going to be totally lopsided but the QB gets sacked 8 times and that team looses. Then in week 11 that same LT gets injured and misses a game. So he missed that week 1 game for nothing. Also since there 18 games but up to 33 starters with special teams it means that multiple starters EVERY week would have to miss games. Here's a question for you. How many kickers and punters and long snappers do teams usually carry? The push back on your idea from the coaches towards their owner would be so great that owners would never pass that. The owners themselves would probably say that they wouldn't pass a rule that let the league dictate what and when players can play.
.

 

[aikemirv]

I got a distinctly different impression from what PFT has been saying. When the initial player rep group voted 7-6 against it (or whatever the number was), they mentioned that those votes ultimately didn't matter if the rank and file players decided to agree to it.



In terms of 'cash', aren't fans paying for that game as a preseason game anyway? Aren't season ticket holders forced to pay fornthise meaningless games too? At least now it means something.

My honest opinion is that they should have gone to 18 games with two bye weeks for each team. Take two of the meaningless preseason games away and replace them with games that count. That gives them 20 weeks for a regular season, essentially five months time. And then the playoffs and Super Bowl give them another month, so you have football for half the year.

But during those 18 games, players are required to be inactive for two of them, some time during the season. Either if injured, or if you've clinched, or if you're out of it, or if it's a weaker opponent. Team's choice. That preserves the current records for a 16-game season while giving the league the added games they want. And it also adds another element of strategy to the team's planning.

https://nypost.com/2020/02/22/what-is-ahead-after-nfl-players-association-delays-vote-on-cba/

"The NFLPA Executive Committee was to vote first to recommend it to the 32 player representatives for a vote that had been expected to take place Friday afternoon. But the executive committee voted 6-5 against recommending the currently proposed CBA early in the day and the 32 player reps opted to postpone taking a vote until next week, according to multiple reports."

Your 18 game proposal would make it interesting but I just don't see a need for 17-18 games or 4 preseason - they should just reduce preseason to 3 games and a scrimmage/combined practice

 

[Stash]

https://nypost.com/2020/02/22/what-is-ahead-after-nfl-players-association-delays-vote-on-cba/

"The NFLPA Executive Committee was to vote first to recommend it to the 32 player representatives for a vote that had been expected to take place Friday afternoon. But the executive committee voted 6-5 against recommending the currently proposed CBA early in the day and the 32 player reps opted to postpone taking a vote until next week, according to multiple reports."

Your 18 game proposal would make it interesting but I just don't see a need for 17-18 games or 4 preseason - they should just reduce preseason to 3 games and a scrimmage/combined practice

Here's what I read:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...mendation-of-board-of-player-representatives/

So even if everyone ahead of them voted against it, the full body of players will be voting on it anyway. And if they approve it by even the smallest majority vote, it will be agreed upon.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but teams are playing 20 games in total now (not counting the Hall of Fame Game). 16 regular season games and 4 preseason games. There's 20 games already. I'm suggesting those same 20 games be adjusted to 18 games that count and 2 preseason games.

 

[Aven8]

They want the visiting team locker rooms remodeled too?! Lol

 

[gjkoeppen]

https://nypost.com/2020/02/22/what-is-ahead-after-nfl-players-association-delays-vote-on-cba/

"The NFLPA Executive Committee was to vote first to recommend it to the 32 player representatives for a vote that had been expected to take place Friday afternoon. But the executive committee voted 6-5 against recommending the currently proposed CBA early in the day and the 32 player reps opted to postpone taking a vote until next week, according to multiple reports."

Your 18 game proposal would make it interesting but I just don't see a need for 17-18 games or 4 preseason - they should just reduce preseason to 3 games and a scrimmage/combined practice

here's a thought about those that want the preseason cut down. The preseason has always been what and how coaches evaluate rookies and players on the bubble in game like situations. Now they usually use the 3rd game to let the starters get some live action snaps in and then the players they expect to be the backups get some saps in. The 4th game is last chance for many players to convince the coaches they deserve to be on the team. Now if you take away a game that means that of those 90 players that come to camp that aren't starters get 1 game of live action to impress and then 1 last game to possibly change some minds. Eliminating 1 game is putting an unneeded strain on the coaches to decide on players with very limited live action experience. Scrimmages are fine but they never are truly like a game. They run some plays and then move the ball into the red zone so the offense can run their red zone offense and the defense get so see their red zone defense. Then they switch it. It's just not the same as a actual game.
.

 

[gjkoeppen]

Here's what I read:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...mendation-of-board-of-player-representatives/

So even if everyone ahead of them voted against it, the full body of players will be voting on it anyway. And if they approve it by even the smallest majority vote, it will be agreed upon.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but teams are playing 20 games in total now (not counting the Hall of Fame Game). 16 regular season games and 4 preseason games. There's 20 games already. I'm suggesting those same 20 games be adjusted to 18 games that count and 2 preseason games.

You're wrong. It requires the same 2/3 majority it takes for the owners to ratify anything. A simple majority won't count. Now when the NFLPA players vote on something that they want to present to the owners,saying this is what the majority want, that only needs a simple majority but to ratify something the owners have ratified the NFLPA needs the same 2/3 majority.
.
Also getting rid of 2 preseason games is something the the coaches will be very outspoken and vehemently opposed to. 2 games to shift through the 90 players less the starters to decide who makes and who doesn't not to mention that the starters need to get at least a half in so that really only leaves 1 1/2 games for the rest. You may not like preseason games but the coaches NEED those preseason games.
.

 

[CouchCoach]

The owners have no intention of further negotiation? I read that not all were on board with this offer.

The only thing I assume is that the players will ratify the offer and will hope for another but will accept this one because they have little leverage. The owners can withstand work stoppage and a lot of those players cannot.

Lost in all of the money and working conditions are the fans that support the game either with their money or their time or both. Lost is the reasoning behind this 17th game, it is purely about the money because they're just replacing a preseason game that the TV nets can't make any money on and turns out to be a bonus for sponsors and the most profitable games for the owners.

When they agree to this, and that's when not if, I do see the agents' angle on future contracts to cover that 17 game either at the full game check equivalent or there will be 16 game contracts. There is no way a star player, making a minimum of 625K a game (10M annually) is going to play for 250K. Right now, the agents for the Cowboys star players that are up are deciding on the 17 game factor in their new deal. Prescott's agent has already figured out the 17 factor on what he was willing to take for 16 games. Anyone think these 30M QB's are going to take 250K to play in that 17th game?

 

[cern]

all I know is it's always about the money.

 

[lostar2009]

These players can’t even do 10 games and they want to move to 17?

this is why I don’t take the health concerns the nfl is supposedly big on serious

If anything go back to 14......

Yup that would make more sense. Division, + NFC Division + AFC Division. If anything give teams two bye weeks and increase the 53 man roster.

 

[CouchCoach]

You're wrong. It requires the same 2/3 majority it takes for the owners to ratify anything. A simple majority won't count. Now when the NFLPA players vote on something that they want to present to the owners,saying this is what the majority want, that only needs a simple majority but to ratify something the owners have ratified the NFLPA needs the same 2/3 majority.
.
Also getting rid of 2 preseason games is something the the coaches will be very outspoken and vehemently opposed to. 2 games to shift through the 90 players less the starters to decide who makes and who doesn't not to mention that the starters need to get at least a half in so that really only leaves 1 1/2 games for the rest. You may not like preseason games but the coaches NEED those preseason games.
.

The coaches do not need preseason games to make decisions on players, they have never needed them. They were not set up for that purpose, they were devised to make additional money for the owners. They were exhibition games.

Bubble players do not make the team in meaningless no game plan games against backups or other bubble players. They make it by going up against known talent on the practice field in a controlled situation.

I think if you asked these coaches if they'd like to dump these preseason games and move to controlled scrimmages, you'd get unanimous approval. They don;t like risking players and their own coaching careers on meaningless games. Every HC on the sideline during a preseason game isn't watching his starters play, he watching after the play to make sure they're not on the ground. And fewer and fewer of them are seeing the field before it gets real for good reason.

 

[CouchCoach]

all I know is it's always about the money.

Well, it is a business, first and foremost. To everyone involved.

 

[cern]

The coaches do not need preseason games to make decisions on players, they have never needed them. They were not set up for that purpose, they were devised to make additional money for the owners. They were exhibition games.

Bubble players do not make the team in meaningless no game plan games against backups or other bubble players. They make it by going up against known talent on the practice field in a controlled situation.

I think if you asked these coaches if they'd like to dump these preseason games and move to controlled scrimmages, you'd get unanimous approval. They don;t like risking players and their own coaching careers on meaningless games. Every HC on the sideline during a preseason game isn't watching his starters play, he watching after the play to make sure they're not on the ground. And fewer and fewer of them are seeing the field before it gets real for good reason.

not only exhibition games, but the owners keep all the money generated from ticket sales for preseason games. they don't have to share with anyone.

 

[cern]

Well, it is a business, first and foremost. To everyone involved.

no doubt. the owners have drummed this thought into the heads of the fans and players for decades. unfortunately they did it too well. now the players are giving them a taste of their own medicine and the owners don't like it. too bad so sad.

 

[jazzcat22]

Good point. Haven't thought of that until now. Plus, there's going to be more complaints from teams having an early bye week.

And, can we assume the season will now start in August, or will the Super Bowl get pushed up to the second week of February?

They can always eliminate the extra week waiting for the SB, then all will be the same, or start a week earlier, which is what I prefer. Always hated waiting until after Labor Day, but they feel they lose viewers from the holiday weekend. But if they go to 18 games, which they eventually will if they get this 17th game.
Then they will have to start earlier, and eliminate that week, especially if they go to 2 bye weeks.

The other reason not to start before Labor Day though, it is when College Football starts as well. I think they let them have that week as more fans get excited over that as well. Plus I think they schedule some Sunday and Monday game that week also for the NCAA.

A lot to consider.

 

[foofighters]

A question.

Since it is an odd number, how is it determined who gets a home or away game?

It almost has to be a neutral site.

This has been Goodell's plan all along. That extra game will eventually played outside the US. It's just my feeling. Owners and fans get their 8 games at home and Goodell gets his Europe/Mexico game.