New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com - Potential Changes in New CBA

New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com (https://blackandgold.com/community/)

- NFL (https://blackandgold.com/nfl/)

- - Potential Changes in New CBA (https://blackandgold.com/nfl/97111-potential-changes-new-cba.html)

Re: Potential Changes in New CBA

The $250K cap on the 17th game was eliminated from the proposal. Now it will be 17th of the total as would be expected. That was only going to affect less than 200 players, anyway.

Re: Potential Changes in New CBA

Heard something interesting today from Demaurice Smith, the executive director of the NFLPA. He said that the goal of the PA was to get an "early deal" done and not wait until the current deal expires. The owner's stipulation in getting that early deal done was the absolute inclusion of a 17th game. There was no way the 17th game would not be part of the next CBA and the PA was fully aware of that fact.

Re: Potential Changes in New CBA

Quote:

Originally Posted by burningmetal (Post 880645)

You can love this deal, if you wish. But to say it wouldn't water things down is just false. The more teams that get in, the more watered down it becomes, even if you personally like it. When you add more water to gravy, what happens? Nothing?

I can't imagine how one could say more playoff teams does NOT water it down. We've had teams with losing records win divisions, because the salary cap has already watered things down. Now you want more crappy teams in? You have to be literally addicted to football to want to watch, just for the sake of "it's football". When my team is out, or not affected in some way by a game that is on, I'm not watching.

More times than not the final team NOT to make the six team playoff list has as good or better record than one of the division winners. By allowing them in it usually makes the playoff field BETTER, not weaker. It is not adding water to the gravy. It is adding more flour and making it thicker. If the playoff teams were strictly based upon regular season record with no divisions then your argument would hold water. That isn't the fact though.

And, yes, I am addicted to NFL football. The TV is on NFL Network and the XM is on NFL Radio. I have had Sunday Ticket since it came out and I watch every Monday, Thursday and Sunday night game. Along with every Saints game I watch the Directv game cast on Sunday afternoons with up to eight games at once.

Re: Potential Changes in New CBA

NFLPA sends out ballot for players’ CBA vote with seven days to review

Mike Jones
USA TODAY

The NFL Players Association on Thursday morning sent out the official ballots for the proposed CBA to its membership body, and players have seven days to review the documentation and then submit their votes.

The deadline is March 12 at 11:59 p.m. ET, the NFLPA said in a statement.

The votes will be submitted electronically, with a third party tabulating the votes.

If the majority rules in favor of the new collective bargaining agreement, then the labor deal between the players and owners will take effect this year.

The NFLPA’s 32 player reps voted 17-14-1 last week to approve the deal. Then came the entire player body vote.

The new deal includes an increase of player revenue from 47% to 48% and potentially 48.5%. The increase will equate to roughly $5 billion extra for the players over the 10-year life of the deal. Minimum salaries will increase by $100,000, rookie contract structure will change and health benefits will improve. However, the regular season will expand to 17 games — a source of contention among players. The playoffs will also expand to 14 teams, which was likely to happen regardless of a new CBA.

High profile players such as Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson, J.J. Watt, Richard Sherman and Russell Okung have criticized the proposed deal, though it’s unclear how much weight their voices will carry.

Re: Potential Changes in New CBA

Certainly now with where the economy is going due to coronavirus, it's imperative for the NFLPA to take the last deal as is.

Re: Potential Changes in New CBA

Quote:

Originally Posted by neugey (Post 881612)

Certainly now with where the economy is going due to coronavirus, it's imperative for the NFLPA to take the last deal as is.

One would think.

Re: Potential Changes in New CBA

It passed...

Re: Potential Changes in New CBA

One less preseason game... No more suspensions for marijuana... 55 man rosters with 48 active on game day- I like all that.

Re: Potential Changes in New CBA

That’s interesting as it pertains to a seemingly injury-prone Davenport.

Re: Potential Changes in New CBA

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeanpierre (Post 881677)

https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/sta...08491241345024

Re: Potential Changes in New CBA

I like the part about the expanding practice squad plus increased ability to transfer a player a few times back and forth from the practice squad without exposing to waivers. The practice squad could actually be useful now and allow teams to navigate patches of injuries. Much better to promote a practice-level guy that is learning our system to fill a short-term need rather than sign a replacement-level short-timer. More developmental opportunities, which have been sorely missing since the NFL Europe days.

Re: Potential Changes in New CBA

Seems to be a misunderstanding about the CBA. The owners do not draft the CBA, they do not want the CBA, the CBA provides zero value to the owners. The players strike without the CBA, not the owners.

The NFLPA is a union and they are empowered collectively.

The owners ‘might’ have representation there dissing the drafting.