Potential Changes in New CBA

AsylumGuido · 02-25-2020, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by jeanpierre

If one signed for $16mil per year and a 17th game is added, one would be looking for that $1mil game check for Game 17 and not agreeing to capped earnings...

Having a capped earning for redistribution is socialism by definition, if not in end-result practice and application...

We saw socialism with the bank bailouts and the auto bailouts; however, other businesses and individuals affected by storms, oil spills, not so much...

That player can still get his $1M game check. It simply has to be negotiated.

jeanpierre · 02-26-2020, 01:26 AM

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido

That player can still get his $1M game check. It simply has to be negotiated.

Renegotiate again? On a case by case basis? Well that's sounds like more corrupt socialism...

Well, guess we'll find out if the nuevo-millionaires will agree...

jeanpierre · 02-26-2020, 01:34 AM

I'd like to point out one other thing - there's no way this is stopping at seventeen (17) games...

That would leave half the teams at a -1 differential of home and away games; teams, and players, will start crying foul to even it out at 18 games...

The only other fair option is that every team will play a abroad game in Britain, Mexico, Canada, et cetera?

Why is 18 significant?

First, it will ensure that every team has as many home games as away games...

Second, same division teams should finally face common opponents...

There will be six division games of a home and away series; that leaves twelve games where four games vs three common divisions could be played...

Only issue at that point is that teams will face two common conference foes vs one common interconference foe for playoff tiebreaker purposes...

However the cynic in me says Goodell, more likely will not this option and will instead use it to stack tougher opponents against the less desirable teams the NFL offices want for the playoffs...

burningmetal · 02-26-2020, 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido

I love the idea of the 17 week season. It means more NFL football for me and that's a good thing. I laid out how it would work a few weeks ago and from what I am hearing it is almost identical to what I had proposed. The key is the extra game would be on a neutral site. Every team would have eight home and away games. The extra game would be against a team in the other conference, in a division you are not facing that season, that finished in the same divisional position.

The 7th playoff team is a win for the same reason. One more game to watch each Saturday and Sunday of wildcard weekend! And it won't water things down. In most years the extra team in has as good of or better record than one of the four division winner getting the automatic slot.

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.

RaginCajun83 · 02-26-2020, 12:40 PM

i just find it funny how 8 years ago the league crippled the Saints in the name of player safety and now they are going to add another game to the regular season and playoffs ..... money talks

jeanpierre · 02-26-2020, 01:30 PM

jeanpierre · 02-26-2020, 02:56 PM

AsylumGuido · 02-26-2020, 02:56 PM

I just heard on NFL Radio that the proposal has been passed on to general membership for a final vote and it is virtually a certainty that the players will vote to accept the proposal.

AsylumGuido · 02-26-2020, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by jeanpierre

https://twitter.com/TheSamAcho/statu...47436835250176

Sounds like one of the vocal few (Sherman/Watt) trying to cause ****. The report that I just relayed said the committee had in fact endorsed the proposal now.

AsylumGuido · 02-26-2020, 03:06 PM

There was a vote last night by the 32 team reps and they voted 17-14 with one abstention to pass it on to the general membership. It only takes 50% plus one vote to pass.

02-25-2020, 12:53 PM	#31
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,274	Re: Potential Changes in New CBA Originally Posted by jeanpierre If one signed for $16mil per year and a 17th game is added, one would be looking for that $1mil game check for Game 17 and not agreeing to capped earnings... Having a capped earning for redistribution is socialism by definition, if not in end-result practice and application... We saw socialism with the bank bailouts and the auto bailouts; however, other businesses and individuals affected by storms, oil spills, not so much... That player can still get his $1M game check. It simply has to be negotiated.

02-26-2020, 01:26 AM	#32
jeanpierre Site Donor 2018 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Thibodaux Posts: 43,543 Blog Entries: 39	Re: Potential Changes in New CBA Originally Posted by AsylumGuido That player can still get his $1M game check. It simply has to be negotiated. Renegotiate again? On a case by case basis? Well that's sounds like more corrupt socialism... Well, guess we'll find out if the nuevo-millionaires will agree... Twitter

02-26-2020, 01:34 AM	#33
jeanpierre Site Donor 2018 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Thibodaux Posts: 43,543 Blog Entries: 39	Re: Potential Changes in New CBA I'd like to point out one other thing - there's no way this is stopping at seventeen (17) games... That would leave half the teams at a -1 differential of home and away games; teams, and players, will start crying foul to even it out at 18 games... The only other fair option is that every team will play a abroad game in Britain, Mexico, Canada, et cetera? Why is 18 significant? First, it will ensure that every team has as many home games as away games... Second, same division teams should finally face common opponents... There will be six division games of a home and away series; that leaves twelve games where four games vs three common divisions could be played... Only issue at that point is that teams will face two common conference foes vs one common interconference foe for playoff tiebreaker purposes... However the cynic in me says Goodell, more likely will not this option and will instead use it to stack tougher opponents against the less desirable teams the NFL offices want for the playoffs...
	It's not that my way is the right way, I just make the right way my way...

02-26-2020, 01:44 AM	#34
burningmetal 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 3,923 Blog Entries: 3	Re: Potential Changes in New CBA Originally Posted by AsylumGuido I love the idea of the 17 week season. It means more NFL football for me and that's a good thing. I laid out how it would work a few weeks ago and from what I am hearing it is almost identical to what I had proposed. The key is the extra game would be on a neutral site. Every team would have eight home and away games. The extra game would be against a team in the other conference, in a division you are not facing that season, that finished in the same divisional position. The 7th playoff team is a win for the same reason. One more game to watch each Saturday and Sunday of wildcard weekend! And it won't water things down. In most years the extra team in has as good of or better record than one of the four division winner getting the automatic slot. 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. K Major likes this.
	If I had a nickel for every time I heard that, the NFL would fine and suspend me.

02-26-2020, 12:40 PM	#35
RaginCajun83 Hou Saints Fan Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Houston, Tx Posts: 5,050	Re: Potential Changes in New CBA i just find it funny how 8 years ago the league crippled the Saints in the name of player safety and now they are going to add another game to the regular season and playoffs ..... money talks

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

02-26-2020, 01:30 PM	#36
jeanpierre Site Donor 2018 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Thibodaux Posts: 43,543 Blog Entries: 39	Re: Potential Changes in New CBA Twitter

02-26-2020, 02:56 PM	#37
jeanpierre Site Donor 2018 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Thibodaux Posts: 43,543 Blog Entries: 39	Re: Potential Changes in New CBA Twitter

02-26-2020, 02:59 PM	#39
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,274	Re: Potential Changes in New CBA Originally Posted by jeanpierre https://twitter.com/TheSamAcho/statu...47436835250176 Sounds like one of the vocal few (Sherman/Watt) trying to cause ****. The report that I just relayed said the committee had in fact endorsed the proposal now.

02-26-2020, 03:06 PM	#40
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,274	Re: Potential Changes in New CBA There was a vote last night by the 32 team reps and they voted 17-14 with one abstention to pass it on to the general membership. It only takes 50% plus one vote to pass.