Voluntary OTAs week 2. 05/27/24-06/02/24

Krangodnzr

Captain of Team Murray
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Posts
35,780
Reaction score
32,928
Location
Orange County, CA
It's good to hear, but also nobody ever says "Oh yeah they just the same as last year" or "Actually I think they went backwards".
I remember hearing Warner's take on Leinart after he retired. Damned him with the faint praise.

I take it as a slightly good news item, but we need to see proof first before I believe it entirely.
 

Totally_Red

Air Raid Warning!
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Posts
8,660
Reaction score
4,181
Location
Iowa
18 games with 2 bye weeks is better for the players.

They are getting a rest week every 6 games on average (2 byes plus end of season). Current setup gives they a break every 8.5 games. And they get an extra game check. It's win win.
It should make bye weeks less unfair to teams that get theirs in week 5.
 

Shane

Current STAR
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
66,623
Reaction score
33,213
Location
Las Vegas
Every check would be smaller
To start yes… but as the seasons progress and new tv contracts are negotiated another week of revenues and advertising etc…. the players would def 100% make more money since it would be more revenue for the league.
 

kerouac9

Klowned by Keim
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Posts
37,494
Reaction score
27,764
Location
Gilbert, AZ
To start yes… but as the seasons progress and new tv contracts are negotiated another week of revenues and advertising etc…. the players would def 100% make more money since it would be more revenue for the league.
Not the ones who don’t get new contracts under some eventual new CBA.
 

Garthshort

ASFN Addict
Joined
Aug 11, 2002
Posts
9,224
Reaction score
5,272
Location
Scarsdale, NY
I like this a lot. Give these players more time to rest during the offseason and basically roll OTAs into preseason.
See where you're coming from. But there is also an argument that the players benefit from having a month off between OTA's and TC. I don't know which is better.
 

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,375
Reaction score
37,949
Location
UK
They do not

I was thinking wouldn't each individual game check just be smaller? lol

Brit isn't technically wrong. They would get an extra check, but the check would be smaller.

Every check would be smaller

To start yes… but as the seasons progress and new tv contracts are negotiated another week of revenues and advertising etc…. the players would def 100% make more money since it would be more revenue for the league.

When they went from 16 games to 17 games it was part of a new CBA and that CBA said that those players already under contract for 16 games would get a proportional base salary bump for the 17th game.

Those on vet minimums and with low base salaries got an extra game check (capped at $250k). The revenue share also increased.

To move to an 18 games season a new CBA would be required as the NFL can't extend the season without the NFLPA on board. So yeah, players will get an extra game check that's in line with their existing game checks. The NFLPA aren't dumb.
 

Ouchie-Z-Clown

I'm better than Mulli!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
61,571
Reaction score
54,168
Location
SoCal
When they went from 16 games to 17 games it was part of a new CBA and that CBA said that those players already under contract for 16 games would get a proportional base salary bump for the 17th game.

Those on vet minimums and with low base salaries got an extra game check (capped at $250k). The revenue share also increased.

To move to an 18 games season a new CBA would be required as the NFL can't extend the season without the NFLPA on board. So yeah, players will get an extra game check that's in line with their existing game checks. The NFLPA aren't dumb.
I would assume this is correct. I’m sure the cba contemplates number of games. No way the nflpa would just allow the nfl to add an infinite number of games without compensatory adjustment.
 
Top