So been seeing a few stories with the new CBA being negotiated. The main headlines seem to be

* Extra regular season game
* 1 extra playoff team and #2 seed losing bye
* Player share of revenue going to 48% then 48.5% with 17 games earning them over $5bn more
* More health coverage for ex-players 
* Reduced preseason schedule and changes to off season schedule.
* 4 more roster spots and rise in minimum salary

On paper, it doesnt seem to unreasonable. Players play 1 more reg season game, lose a preseason game, more money for the players but a number of big names have come out against it.

The main complaint seems to be around the 17th game, the players say its more risk than preseason and this isnt in the players interests. Obviously we all want more games but does anyone think we NEED an extra game? Half the teams are going to have to play an extra game on the road. We all know itz purely for money and extra cash for the owners but what do you guys make of it?

It seems pretty reasonable from the owners but this deal will still benefit them more.

---

So been seeing a few stories with the new CBA being negotiated. The main headlines seem to be

* Extra regular season game
* 1 extra playoff team and #2 seed losing bye
* Player share of revenue going to 48% then 48.5% with 17 games earning them over $5bn more
* More health coverage for ex-players 
* Reduced preseason schedule and changes to off season schedule.
* 4 more roster spots and rise in minimum salary

On paper, it doesnt seem to unreasonable. Players play 1 more reg season game, lose a preseason game, more money for the players but a number of big names have come out against it.

The main complaint seems to be around the 17th game, the players say its more risk than preseason and this isnt in the players interests. Obviously we all want more games but does anyone think we NEED an extra game? Half the teams are going to have to play an extra game on the road. We all know itz purely for money and extra cash for the owners but what do you guys make of it?

It seems pretty reasonable from the owners but this deal will still benefit them more.

Owners getting greedy again. I like the second bye. In the next CBA in 2030 or whenever, are the owners going to ask for an 18th game? When does it end? The more games are added, the more the playoffs become a tournament of the least injured teams.

---

"I am only an average man, but by George, I work harder at it than the average man." - Teddy Roosevelt

So been seeing a few stories with the new CBA being negotiated. The main headlines seem to be

* Extra regular season game
* 1 extra playoff team and #2 seed losing bye
* Player share of revenue going to 48% then 48.5% with 17 games earning them over $5bn more
* More health coverage for ex-players 
* Reduced preseason schedule and changes to off season schedule.
* 4 more roster spots and rise in minimum salary

On paper, it doesnt seem to unreasonable. Players play 1 more reg season game, lose a preseason game, more money for the players but a number of big names have come out against it.

The main complaint seems to be around the 17th game, the players say its more risk than preseason and this isnt in the players interests. Obviously we all want more games but does anyone think we NEED an extra game? Half the teams are going to have to play an extra game on the road. We all know itz purely for money and extra cash for the owners but what do you guys make of it?

It seems pretty reasonable from the owners but this deal will still benefit them more.

Owners getting greedy again. I like the second bye. In the next CBA in 2030 or whenever, are the owners going to ask for an 18th game? When does it end? The more games are added, the more the playoffs become a tournament of the least injured teams.

Year round league. 28 game regular season schedule. 6 weeks of playoffs. 48 teams, 68 roster spots, 56 game day actives. 2 divisions in Europe, 1 in the Pacific, 1 in Central and South America. NFL uber alles.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Though I expect playoff expansion, this is the facet of the proposed CBA that I'm totally against. Expanding the regular season to 17 games AND then adding two playoff teams devalues the regular season,.

---

So been seeing a few stories with the new CBA being negotiated. The main headlines seem to be

* Extra regular season game
* 1 extra playoff team and #2 seed losing bye
* Player share of revenue going to 48% then 48.5% with 17 games earning them over $5bn more
* More health coverage for ex-players 
* Reduced preseason schedule and changes to off season schedule.
* 4 more roster spots and rise in minimum salary

On paper, it doesnt seem to unreasonable. Players play 1 more reg season game, lose a preseason game, more money for the players but a number of big names have come out against it.

The main complaint seems to be around the 17th game, the players say its more risk than preseason and this isnt in the players interests. Obviously we all want more games but does anyone think we NEED an extra game? Half the teams are going to have to play an extra game on the road. We all know itz purely for money and extra cash for the owners but what do you guys make of it?

It seems pretty reasonable from the owners but this deal will still benefit them more.

Owners getting greedy again. I like the second bye. In the next CBA in 2030 or whenever, are the owners going to ask for an 18th game? When does it end? The more games are added, the more the playoffs become a tournament of the least injured teams.

This is my big worry. We see it every year, teams losing key players and fading off. The seasons not long enough to recover from long term injuries and adding an extra game with no extea bye doesnt help players in anyway.

---

Owners getting greedy again. I like the second bye. In the next CBA in 2030 or whenever, are the owners going to ask for an 18th game? When does it end? The more games are added, the more the playoffs become a tournament of the least injured teams.

Year round league. 28 game regular season schedule. 6 weeks of playoffs. 48 teams, 68 roster spots, 56 game day actives. 2 divisions in Europe, 1 in the Pacific, 1 in Central and South America. NFL uber alles.

I do think theres someone in NFL HQ that thinks like that. Thursday night games in China, spin the wheel to find out what country your playing in next...

---

Though I expect playoff expansion,  this is the facet of the proposed CBA that I'm totally against.   Expanding the regular season to 17 games AND then adding two playoff teams devalues the regular season,.

I do agree. When 14 out of 32 teams make the playoffs, and only the #1 seed gets a bye, i see teams like basketball just playing to get in and then trying in the playoffs.

If they got rid of Thursday games so players can recover but no extra regular season bye and no #2 seed bye means a team could have a bye week 3 or 4 then play 13 straight in regular season and another 3 in the playoffs. 16 games straight. Thats brutal.

---

Few more bits from the CBA.

The owners would have a chance between 2021 and 2023 to add the week 17 game and how it would work so may be a few seasons away.

Minimum salary going from $600,000 to $1.01m in 2030.

Gameday roster up to 48 from 46 but one of those extra players must be OL. Practice squad increasing to 12 players and then 14 in 2022. Teams will be able to move 2 practice squad players to the roster in a week and teams can move players twice to PS before having to clear waivers.

And there are performance and contract changes for rookie deals.

---

So here's where it gets weird.

Marijuana policy. 

The new CBA would eliminate suspensions for [font=Georgia,]positive marijuana tests, limit the testing period to the first two weeks of training camp and raise the threshold for a positive test from 35 to 150 nanograms of THC. The idea is to focus the drug program on clinical care as opposed to punishment. Basically, if you test positive, your test gets reviewed by a board of jointly appointed medical professionals to determine whether you need any kind of treatment. The NFLPA deal memo also says that "violations of law for marijuana possession generally will not result in suspension."[/font]

The policy on performance-enhancing drugs will change as well. A first failed test for stimulants or diuretics will result in a two-game suspension. A first failed test for anabolic steroids will result in a six-game suspension. 

And "manipulation and or substitution and use of a prohibited substance" will land players an eight-game suspension. A second violation for stimulants or diuretics results in a five-game suspension. A second violation for anabolics results in a 17-game suspension.
The new deal also increases the punishment for DUI to a three-game suspension.
Suspended players now will be permitted to be at the team facility during the second half of their suspension period.

Goodell seems to be handing over some of his disciplinary powers

[font=Georgia,]The new deal would provide neutral arbitration for most discipline cases, including personal conduct policy violations. And the NFLPA memo says the deal carries "significant reductions" in club fines and on-field player fines.

This has been a point of contention among players who have felt the discipline and appeals process has been unfair since the people in charge of imposing the discipline have been the ones who hear the appeals. That will no longer be the case in most discipline matters, according to the memo.[/font]

[font=Georgia,]And this[/font]

[font=Georgia,][font=Georgia,]One thing the owners set out to get in this deal was stricter punishment for training camp holdouts, and it looks as if the new deal would increase fines for holdouts and players who leave camp without permission[/font][/font]

[font=Georgia,][font=Georgia,][font=Georgia,]A "player playing under a contract signed as a veteran who fails to report to his club's preseason training camp on time or reports and leaves the club for more than five days" cannot have his fines waived by the team upon return and will not earn an accrued season for that season. Harsh, but note that it specifies "a contract signed as a veteran." So it seems as if the new anti-holdout rules won't apply to players holding out for more at the end of their rookie contracts, as Ezekiel Elliott did last year, for example[/font][/font][/font]

---

Curious if there is any way they can work something into the CBA about players bashing their employer on social media.

---

Though I expect playoff expansion,  this is the facet of the proposed CBA that I'm totally against.   Expanding the regular season to 17 games AND then adding two playoff teams devalues the regular season,.

I do agree. When 14 out of 32 teams make the playoffs, and only the #1 seed gets a bye, i see teams like basketball just playing to get in and then trying in the playoffs.

If they got rid of Thursday games so players can recover but no extra regular season bye and no #2 seed bye means a team could have a bye week 3 or 4 then play 13 straight in regular season and another 3 in the playoffs. 16 games straight. Thats brutal.

In addition to what you mentioned,  which are excellent points,  I think there's a very realistic possibility that the NFL will expand the playoffs to 16 teams sometime in the next 15 years. 

When a team in a division with 3 losing record teams gets the # 1 seed,  complaints will be coming from many different directions.  Hence, a call to eliminate byes.  Knowing that the NFL has a large number of owners that don't see the big picture (  myopic is how I would describe them ),  putting short term revenue above what's best long term,  the NFL easily could be on its way to being a version of the NBA or NHL.

---

I do agree. When 14 out of 32 teams make the playoffs, and only the #1 seed gets a bye, i see teams like basketball just playing to get in and then trying in the playoffs.

If they got rid of Thursday games so players can recover but no extra regular season bye and no #2 seed bye means a team could have a bye week 3 or 4 then play 13 straight in regular season and another 3 in the playoffs. 16 games straight. Thats brutal.

In addition to what you mentioned,  which are excellent points,  I think there's a very realistic possibility that the NFL will expand the playoffs to 16 teams sometime in the next 15 years. 

When a team in a division with 3 losing record teams gets the # 1 seed,  complaints will be coming from many different directions.  Hence, a call to eliminate byes.  Knowing that the NFL has a large number of owners that don't see the big picture (  myopic is how I would describe them ),  putting short term revenue above what's best long term,  the NFL easily could be on its way to being a version of the NBA or NHL.

Very well put. This is one of my biggest problems with the owners and NFL. Money and profit has clouded their thinking on everything. They want constant growth and ever increasing returns, that doesn't just happen and especially when you start destroying the core product. 

You can see their thinking, everyone loves the playoffs, they get TV and advertising cash. So lets have more. Fans only have one game to pick from in the playoffs. But that is going to destroy regular season viewing figures as those games will be largely meaningless. Like you say, short term thinking. 

I do wonder if we will see an increase in teams at some point. The NFL is invested in the International Series games and while the league structure is very good at the moment, i wonder if they would try adding 8 teams, 1 for each division and try and open up London, Mexico, maybe Canada for extra teams. Im sure the finance would determine how possible it would make it but like i said, money is clouding everything.

---