New CBA

RON_IN_OC

https://www.ronevansrealty.com
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Posts
25,484
Reaction score
31,942
Location
BirdGangThing
This is why it dont work. Make it 18 or nothing. Too much fannying around.

Aren't you automatically giving an advantage to all the teams with 9 home games? Every year the teams in divisions that have 9 home games will be statistically more likely to make the playoffs.
Previous post said it would be by conference...and I'd suppose the 9th home games would be inner-conference games, to not impact the other conference.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

Cbus cardsfan

Back to Back ASFN FFL Champion
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
21,148
Reaction score
6,588
This is why it dont work. Make it 18 or nothing. Too much fannying around.

Aren't you automatically giving an advantage to all the teams with 9 home games? Every year the teams in divisions that have 9 home games will be statistically more likely to make the playoffs.
Not if all the teams in the same conference have the same amount of home games. Which is how it would work.
 

AZman5103

Hall of Famer
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Posts
1,673
Reaction score
1,767
Location
Idaho
Is there any word on how long this CBA will be good for?

1. Im really glad to hear that they have come to an agreement before we even hear about a hold out or strike.

2. The new formats actually sound like things that all parties (owners, players, and fans) would all want. Preseason is a waste of time for players, and a ripoff for fans. Adding the 17th game to the regular season, along with another playoff spot, while also eliminating a preseason game sounds like something most players could get behind.

The only thing I would have liked to see (and maybe it is in there...haven't seen) is an expansion to active roster size. Why are we limiting teams to 53 guys on a roster, with only 46 active on game days? With the amount of injuries and wear and tear on players, there is no reason it can't be closer to 60, with everyone able to play in a game if a coach wants to put them in. Hell, I could even see only having a roster MINIMUM...saying you must have at least 40 active players on game day, but you can have as many as you want...the salary cap stays the same. If some team wants to have 65 players and rotate 15 D-Lineman throughout the game thats their choice. If another team wants to have fewer, higher priced players....but no depth...let them take that risk?
 

Jetstream Green

Kool Aid with a touch of vodka
Joined
Feb 5, 2003
Posts
29,459
Reaction score
16,598
Location
San Antonio, Texas
This is all sweet and dandy but if they do this, increase the dang roster of a team. Seriously, these are human bodies making this possible and this increase of play will decrease the quality
 

outcent13

Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Posts
1,269
Reaction score
1,824
They will probably end up making the extra game an overseas game (London, Mexico). Everyone keeps an 8 home 8 away schedule and 1 overseas game for all teams. JMO. I also wonder if they will expand rosters by a couple of guys ?

I really think NFL players need to fight for guaranteed contracts more than anything.
 
Last edited:

GatorAZ

feed hopkins
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Posts
24,248
Reaction score
16,393
Location
The Giant Toaster
In a perfect world without losing big advertising bucks they should eliminate the preseason completely and make the regular season 18 games. Each team gets two bye weeks. One in week 5-6 and one in week 11-12. So for four weeks there’s only half a slate of games but still games.
 

bankybruce

All In!
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2003
Posts
25,496
Reaction score
16,516
Location
Nowhere
The players still need to agree to this, right? My guess is they come back with 17 games and 2 preseason games along with a 60 man roster with 50-52 active on game day. We'll see 3 active QBs again as a normal thing.
 

wa52lz

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Posts
2,110
Reaction score
1,231
The players still need to agree to this, right? My guess is they come back with 17 games and 2 preseason games along with a 60 man roster with 50-52 active on game day. We'll see 3 active QBs again as a normal thing.
I saw on Rotoworld, 55 on the roster and two more practice squad spots and no restrictions on the number of years played for PS players

Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk
 
OP
OP
Cardsfaninlouky

Cardsfaninlouky

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Posts
4,424
Reaction score
5,819
Location
Louisville
In a perfect world without losing big advertising bucks they should eliminate the preseason completely and make the regular season 18 games. Each team gets two bye weeks. One in week 5-6 and one in week 11-12. So for four weeks there’s only half a slate of games but still games.
Exactly. By eliminating the preseason, they will have to expand the rosters, otherwise, there's no way all the drafted players have a chance to show what they can do. Maybe expand the rosters to 60 & allow more practice squad players? That would leave room for all the draftees. Some you know will make the team (rounds 1-3) the 4th-7th are less likely but need a chance.
 

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,031
Reaction score
37,086
Location
UK
This is all sweet and dandy but if they do this, increase the dang roster of a team. Seriously, these are human bodies making this possible and this increase of play will decrease the quality

The main change I'd like to see is a 2nd bye week and all Thursday night games must be teams coming off a bye.
 

slanidrac16

ASFN Icon
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2002
Posts
15,002
Reaction score
14,417
Location
Plainfield, Il.
Here’s an interesting question on the 17 game schedule.

As a Cardinal fan, if on the bye week would you go to watch a game between the 49ers and Seahawks at State Farm Stadium?

They keep talking about neutral sites. Of course I don’t see this happening but I’m wondering if It would peak your interest.
 

MadCardDisease

Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
19,824
Reaction score
11,761
Location
Chandler, Az
Looks like this is going to pass, maybe as soon as during the Combine at some point. 17 game schedule, with 3 preseason games & an additional wild card team per conference. Only the top seed in each conference will now get a first round bye. Players shares from revenue will increase from 47.5% to 48.5% if I read it right? I'm hoping the right pieces are added through FA & the draft to compete for that 3rd wild card spot at the very least.

I don't buy it. No way the new CBA passes anytime soon. There is too much on the line for both sides for it to pass this quickly.

I really don't think the players want to play an extra game. The game is hard enough on the body with just 16 games.

I have no problem with adding an extra wild card team to each conference. It will keep more fan bases engaged later into the season.
 

jf-08

Guy Smiley
Administrator
Super Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 15, 2002
Posts
26,062
Reaction score
20,247
Location
Eye in the Sky
Here’s an interesting question on the 17 game schedule.

As a Cardinal fan, if on the bye week would you go to watch a game between the 49ers and Seahawks at State Farm Stadium?

They keep talking about neutral sites. Of course I don’t see this happening but I’m wondering if It would peak your interest.

I wouldn't be interested and I don't think many Cards fans would. A neutral site with no team would clamor for those tickets though - say, Montreal, London, Mexico City, Barcelona, Monterrey, Boise, Lincoln NE, Tokyo, Osaka, etc.
 

Russ Smith

The Original Whizzinator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
84,230
Reaction score
32,845
Yeah I don't like 17 and I don't like 18 either. My main argument is player health, take away preseason games helps but you're now asking star players to play 2 more non playoff games, they typically barely play in the preseason so the risk to their health is much greater.

it also makes record comparisons tough but we already had that going from 14 to 16, and all the new rules make records impossible to compare across eras.

The safety thing is the main thing to me, I've been saying for awhile now I think the NFL will go away, probably in my lifetime(I'm 54) because of all the player safety issues. Adding 1 or 2 more real games doesn't help in that regard.
 
OP
OP
Cardsfaninlouky

Cardsfaninlouky

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Posts
4,424
Reaction score
5,819
Location
Louisville
I don't buy it. No way the new CBA passes anytime soon. There is too much on the line for both sides for it to pass this quickly.

I really don't think the players want to play an extra game. The game is hard enough on the body with just 16 games.

I have no problem with adding an extra wild card team to each conference. It will keep more fan bases engaged later into the season.
I did some more reading on the proposal yesterday. The 17 game season won't take effect until 2022. Don't be surprised when it passes. It only needs a 2/3 vote in order to pass. 32 teams each with a player rep.....only need 21-22 of them to vote yes in order to pass.
 

GuernseyCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Dec 29, 2012
Posts
10,123
Reaction score
5,680
Location
London UK
Yeah I don't like 17 and I don't like 18 either. My main argument is player health, take away preseason games helps but you're now asking star players to play 2 more non playoff games, they typically barely play in the preseason so the risk to their health is much greater.

it also makes record comparisons tough but we already had that going from 14 to 16, and all the new rules make records impossible to compare across eras.

The safety thing is the main thing to me, I've been saying for awhile now I think the NFL will go away, probably in my lifetime(I'm 54) because of all the player safety issues. Adding 1 or 2 more real games doesn't help in that regard.

I'll leave it the NFLPA to argue "health" if this argument can be seriously made.

The game will die when mothers decide and I somehow doubt it will be in your long, healthy, prosperous life.

That said - it's a done deal. The players will vote for an extra paycheque!

Game 17 will be used to promote the game, here, there, everywhere.
 

GuernseyCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Dec 29, 2012
Posts
10,123
Reaction score
5,680
Location
London UK
I did some more reading on the proposal yesterday. The 17 game season won't take effect until 2022. Don't be surprised when it passes. It only needs a 2/3 vote in order to pass. 32 teams each with a player rep.....only need 21-22 of them to vote yes in order to pass.

The VOTE then has to go to the general membership.
 

Russ Smith

The Original Whizzinator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
84,230
Reaction score
32,845
I'll leave it the NFLPA to argue "health" if this argument can be seriously made.

The game will die when mothers decide and I somehow doubt it will be in your long, healthy, prosperous life.

That said - it's a done deal. The players will vote for an extra paycheque!

Game 17 will be used to promote the game, here, there, everywhere.

I see both sides like all of us I absolutely love NFL football. But the more stuff that comes out about the concussions and other stuff the worse it looks. As others said clearly 17 isn't the final move it's going to be 18. Not to totally derail the thread but the reason RB has become such a less important position in the NFL is almost entirely due to the schedule going from 14 to 16 games. Yes RB's can gain more yardage but studies show the average NFL RB can expect to be healthy just under 13.5 games per season, it's the lowest expected average of any position in the NFL, it's 13.3 and the next lowest is 14. So when they added 2 games the position most impacted was RB, if you're lucky enough to play all 16 games you get 2 more games of pounding which increases the odds you get hurt and cut your career short. If they go up to 18 that's going to get worse, the average may stay close to 13 but it's going to mean NFL teams need more RB's so they're going to have to expand the roster to cover that. It's also why FB's got severely reduced, increase the games you need more RB's the most obvious position to skimp on was RB. TE and S are the next 2 spots with the most injuries so teams will need more of those.

2015 study says the average NFL player has a 4.1% chance of injury in every game they play and the average games missed with said injury is 3.1. Over 18 games it means you have to expand rosters(I'm assuming they did not really sure) and you're still going to have more injuries and more serious injuries. Even if you expand rosters what that means is 8-10 years from now there's going to be a bigger pool of guys who have the head injuries, the more guys who play in the games the more will get those injuries.

So yeah it won't be in 5 years but I could see in 20 where there's just so much data that its' just hard to get enough players.

I guess we'll so it obviously pays well and has other fringe benefits but i still feel it's quite likely going to end in my lifetime.
 
Top