What to Expect in the New CBA

[RiverDog]

I stumbled upon this article and thought it would be a worthy subject to kick around during the offseason:

https://sports.yahoo.com/new-nfl-labor- ... NlU8Ga47ow

Some of the highlights: An 18 game regular season, playoffs expanded from 12 teams to 14, a change in the marijuana policy,

It also notes how the NFLPA has sent letters to player's agents suggesting that they start saving money for a work stoppage. That's the latest indication that the talks may not go as smoothly as they did in the previous negotiation.

[NorthHawk]

I saw a similar story a while ago and that one left the impression that the NFLPA wasn't
interested in more regular season games. It didn't mention expanded playoffs which
might be acceptable as it would give more players more money, but we'll see.

[RiverDog]

They were against an expanded regular season last time around so it only makes sense that they would be this time, too. However, it's difficult to tell how much resistance to an expanded regular season truly exists within the union. If they know that management wants something, they're going to use it to extract some other concession out of them. However, I do think that the players have legitimate concerns that would cause them to resist such a proposal.

I'm generally not in favor of an expanded regular season, however, I could be talked into a 17 game schedule, with the odd game being played on a neutral field, such as those held in London and Mexico City. They don't all have to be international games as they could have one in Hawaii, for example. Other possible domestic locations could be Boise, Salt Lake City, and San Antonio.

I am four square against any expansion of the playoffs unless the league itself expands.

[NorthHawk]

The reply from the players rep regarding and expanded season was short and succinct.
He simply said something to the affect of: No, that's not an option. Players get beat
up too much already.

[RiverDog]

The reply from the players rep regarding and expanded season was short and succinct.
He simply said something to the affect of: No, that's not an option. Players get beat
up too much already.

That's one of the legitimate reasons, ie safety. It makes it more difficult for a player to maximize their careers as the more games you play, the greater the risk of a career threatening injury. It will be interesting to see how hard the league pushes it.

But the union might be willing to compromise on a 17 game season if the league were to eliminate 1 or 2 preseason games.

[idhawkman]

Expanded regular season:
1. The owners will have season ticket holders and fans on their side for this. I know I've seen posts in here (I think it was River most recently) about having to pay full price for pre-season tickets. So the players union would be all alone resisting this.

2. The players may have a legitimate beef against playing two more games but I would counter that with the idea that with more games counting, you could give more time off to a player who is banged up without the lost time counting as heavily in a shorter season. (e.g. if you take 2 games off to heal up plus a bye week, its only 1/9th of the season instead of 1/8 of the season. Also, there might be more room to negotiate for higher team caps since there would be more "active" games for game checks.

3. If the players are concerned about injuries they could also counter with higher roster numbers. INstead of 53 players, maybe it is 58 or 60 on a team. Individual players may not go for this but the players union as a whole would stand to gain huge numbers of new members. I don't know how I would address the angle of older players being able to stay on a roster longer but I'm sure there's an angle there with larger roster sizes. (E.g. League minimum payments for those players who are impact ST guys or older guys who have leadership roles in the locker room may get an extra year or two out of their career if the roster was expanded a little bit).

More playoff teams:

By adding two, that would suggest that there would be no first round byes any more. I like this idea. The playing field would be more level and the only incentive to winning is home field which should be enough of an advantage to skew the table in the favor of better teams, you don't have to tee up the game for the home team and make it lopsided.

Marijuana Issue:

I could see them loosening the rules on CBD oil but the stuff containing THC can only be on the table for consideration because so many states have recreational laws governing it now. Not sure there is a medical reason for the THC type. This could get push back because the federal law is still the same stating that it is illegal. If that is overturned by the time they come out with the new agreement though, I'd expect it to be treated like Alcohol. E.g. drunk and disorderly or DUI will also include Drunk and stoned (I kind of laugh when I say that) and so forth.

[idhawkman]

Reading my #2 above wouldn't it be interesting if the cap was calculated on a per game basis? E.g. all your "active players" on the field for any given regular season game could not total more than "$10M" and Playoffs would be like $12M.

By limiting the "active players" you wouldn't get penalized as a team so much if a star (RW or BWags) goes down for a game or two. It would also incentivize teams to keep those older players in case the new guy gets hurt (e.g. you'd have to really consider how you build your bench and who you play on game day). One aspect I really like about this is the incentive to give bonuses to players for making the playoffs.

NOTE: players who are not active for the week still get their pay but it doesn't count against the cap. (or you could have some percentage of their pay - bottom line is they would still get a paycheck and might want to take more time to heal if needed.)

[c_hawkbob]

Wonder why no one has mentioned the elephant sitting in the middle of the room ... I think the biggest thing the players are gonna demand is fully guaranteed contracts.

I also think the rest of these lesser issues may well go the players way in order to prevent such a concession.

I expect they'll just take THC testing off the list completely. It's largely legal and not a performance enhancer anyway. Easy concession.

[Rambo2014]

Mann what a bummer for the Seahawks!

Just when u may actually pull it together the players strike...

Thats why the Rams will secure a trophy this season

[NorthHawk]

Wonder why no one has mentioned the elephant sitting in the middle of the room ... I think the biggest thing the players are gonna demand is fully guaranteed contracts.

I also think the rest of these lesser issues may well go the players way in order to prevent such a concession.

I expect they'll just take THC testing off the list completely. It's largely legal and not a performance enhancer anyway. Easy concession.

That's a pretty big step for the owners to take and I'm not sure they are prepared to do that yet.
As well, what would the players give up? Might it be an 18 game schedule or more restrictions on movement
after their contract ends like another type of Tag? I think it would have to be substantial for the owners to
commit to guaranteed contracts.

But it might be coming at some point.

[RiverDog]

Wonder why no one has mentioned the elephant sitting in the middle of the room ... I think the biggest thing the players are gonna demand is fully guaranteed contracts.

I also think the rest of these lesser issues may well go the players way in order to prevent such a concession.

I expect they'll just take THC testing off the list completely. It's largely legal and not a performance enhancer anyway. Easy concession.

Marijuana isn't "largely" legal, at least not yet. So far, 10 states have legalized recreational use and it's still against federal law. But I get your point. As you stated, since it's not performance enhancing and the public's attitude has changed, it should be an easy concession to give away. Many employers are doing away with the test as a pre employment screen so there's an easy out for the league if they're worried about a PR problem.

I honestly haven't heard what kinds of issues the players will be bargaining for. I do know that they hate the franchise tag, but that affects a very small percentage of players so I can't see it being a strike issue. I'm also not sure how much of an issue fully guaranteed contracts will be. It could have the effect of teams signing players for smaller amounts. IMO the owners will strongly resist fully guaranteed contracts.

What I'd like to see happen is for there to be a percentage of cap limit on how much a team can pay one player, perhaps some type of graduated scale, such as if you pay one player 15+% you can't pay a 2nd player more than 8%.

[c_hawkbob]

That's a pretty big step for the owners to take and I'm not sure they are prepared to do that yet.
As well, what would the players give up? Might it be an 18 game schedule or more restrictions on movement
after their contract ends like another type of Tag? I think it would have to be substantial for the owners to
commit to guaranteed contracts.

But it might be coming at some point.

What is it you're saying is a big step for the owners?

If you mean guaranteed contracts, make no mistake, that's exactly what the players are going to want, and their going to be ready to hold out for it. As for what the players would be willing to give up, the article above lays out a pretty good list.

[c_hawkbob]

Wonder why no one has mentioned the elephant sitting in the middle of the room ... I think the biggest thing the players are gonna demand is fully guaranteed contracts.

I also think the rest of these lesser issues may well go the players way in order to prevent such a concession.

I expect they'll just take THC testing off the list completely. It's largely legal and not a performance enhancer anyway. Easy concession.

Marijuana isn't "largely" legal, at least not yet. So far, 10 states have legalized recreational use and it's still against federal law. But I get your point. As you stated, since it's not performance enhancing and the public's attitude has changed, it should be an easy concession to give away. Many employers are doing away with the test as a pre employment screen so there's an easy out for the league if they're worried about a PR problem.

I honestly haven't heard what kinds of issues the players will be bargaining for. I do know that they hate the franchise tag, but that affects a very small percentage of players so I can't see it being a strike issue. I'm also not sure how much of an issue fully guaranteed contracts will be. It could have the effect of teams signing players for smaller amounts. IMO the owners will strongly resist fully guaranteed contracts.

What I'd like to see happen is for there to be a percentage of cap limit on how much a team can pay one player, perhaps some type of graduated scale, such as if you pay one player 15+% you can't pay a 2nd player more than 8%.

Parse words all you want, IMO 1/5th of the country with many more states queuing it up, and 61% of Americans in favor of legalization all adds up to "largely".

I didn't say mostly or predominantly. You needn't have corrected my use of the word I chose, it was appropriate.

[NorthHawk]

What is it you're saying is a big step for the owners?

If you mean guaranteed contracts, make no mistake, that's exactly what the players are going to want, and their going to be ready to hold out for it. As for what the players would be willing to give up, the article above lays out a pretty good list.

It's a huge step for the owners and I don't think they want to do it until there is no choice.
I do think it's inevitable, though somewhere down the road.

I don't think the article lays out anything the players would give up that would equate to the impact
of guaranteed contracts. 18 game schedule and no Cannabis testing? Nowhere near enough for the
owners to move on guarantees. My guess is the owners would want a larger piece of the revenue
pie to offset any and all increases in overall payroll costs. And of course, that would come from the
players portion of the revenue.

[c_hawkbob]

Oh I'm not saying that the players are going to get guaranteed contracts this session, I'm saying guaranteed contracts are why we're fixin to have a work stoppage this session.

[obiken]

Oh I'm not saying that the players are going to get guaranteed contracts this session, I'm saying guaranteed contracts are why we're fixin to have a work stoppage this session.

I agree with you Bob but no way owners like Jerry Jones are going to give GC to defensive players, one year at the most.

[idhawkman]

Wonder why no one has mentioned the elephant sitting in the middle of the room ... I think the biggest thing the players are gonna demand is fully guaranteed contracts.

I also think the rest of these lesser issues may well go the players way in order to prevent such a concession.

I expect they'll just take THC testing off the list completely. It's largely legal and not a performance enhancer anyway. Easy concession.

This last line made me laugh Bob. You're right. If you believe the reports on THC making our kids less active it is actually a performance detractor.

Regarding the fully guaranteed contracts, I don't think they need the CBA to get that. I believe they can do Fully guranteed now. It just takes two sides to agree for a contract. That said, it doesn't prevent the players for asking for it but if I was an owner I'd say there's nothing preventing it now so what are you trying to get? All contracts as fully guaranteed? That would be the end of the league unless you could make exceptions for injury and drop in production, wait... isn't that whats there now?

[idhawkman]

What is it you're saying is a big step for the owners?

If you mean guaranteed contracts, make no mistake, that's exactly what the players are going to want, and their going to be ready to hold out for it. As for what the players would be willing to give up, the article above lays out a pretty good list.

Well one thing is for sure, the players are going to go for a BIG ask in this one since they are telling their players to save up now (2 seasons worth of salaries).

I know that in the past the players have been replaced and the quality wasn't the same as when the normal players were in but I wonder if that would still be the case in today's environment. Here's some things to "CONSIDER" but doesn't mean it will overrule the quality.

The number of teams in the league has largely stayed the same.
The number of colleges producing better athletes and competing has grown.
There's much more talent wanting into the league than before all competing for a precious few slots.

Before, you had the power 5 conferences (If you can include the ACC in that) and not many if any other colleges producing NFL quality players. Now you have smaller schools like Utah, TCU, Boise State, NIU, etc. producing NFL starting quality players. The population along with the number of students and organizations in college football has way out paced the number of available NFL slots. Therefore, there's quality players out there that can fill in if there is a walk out by the players. He-Hate-Me and one or two others is all that made it to regular squads during the last major walk out. I think there would be many more if the players walk out again.

Additionally, with more and more teams throwing away veterans in favor of rookie salaried players it wouldn't take long to replace entire rosters over 2-3 years. Yes, the NFL would probably suffer some big losses financially but I think they would pull through it just fine.

[NorthHawk]

Still, lesser talent means a lesser product in sports.
As well, the names wouldn't be there to attract or keep fans in seats.
I'm not sure the Owners are willing to forego a year or 2's profits when
they can make a lot of money with an agreement. The players know
their careers are short, so there is a big incentive on both sides to come
to an agreement. I think DeMaurice Smith is just being prudent with his
advice to players as the last work stoppage showed a number of players
were living pay check to pay check even on million dollar salaries.

[idhawkman]

Still, lesser talent means a lesser product in sports.
As well, the names wouldn't be there to attract or keep fans in seats.
I'm not sure the Owners are willing to forego a year or 2's profits when
they can make a lot of money with an agreement. The players know
their careers are short, so there is a big incentive on both sides to come
to an agreement. I think DeMaurice Smith is just being prudent with his
advice to players as the last work stoppage showed a number of players
were living pay check to pay check even on million dollar salaries.

Do you really think that they would have a problem filling the stadiums? I don't. There's a lot of people waiting to fill seats in stadiums. There are a few that have low attendance but hey, if they do a good job, they may start winning and start filling their stadiums. Whoever is winning will have full stadiums and those that aren't are going to have cheap seats so that the fan who always wanted to go can now go.

[NorthHawk]

The TV ratings dropped a lot last time if I remember correctly, and that's
what drives the revenue.

[burrrton]

Do you really think that they would have a problem filling the stadiums?

Yes. And viewership would *crater*.

[idhawkman]

I just think the quality of play put on the field would dictate viewership. The last time they did this, they didn't have much time to put together teams if I remember correctly. They know this is coming so maybe the viewership won't crater as much as they think it will. I guess it will come down to dollars and sense (yes, I spelled it that way on purpose). If they would lose more money on guarantees or if they think they will lose more money on reduced viewership.

I just hink that 2-3 years of reduced viewership may be worth a wholesale change of the existing players. Rebuild the brand, etc.

[RiverDog]

Do you really think that they would have a problem filling the stadiums?

Yes. And viewership would *crater*.

So far, attendance has remained relatively steady, and with new stadiums opening in LA and Las Vegas next season, they'll probably get a little bump. But it would be dangerous to assume that attendance will always remain constant. MLB has seen a steady decline in attendance over the past few years, a reflection of increased competition for the entertainment dollar.

TV viewership has already been on the decline, and if this year's SB ratings are any indication, the league is skating on thin ice. An extended work stoppage could result in fans looking to other options for their limited entertainment dollars, and they might have a tough time getting them back.

It is in both sides interest not to have a work stoppage.

[burrrton]

I just think the quality of play put on the field would dictate viewership.

I'm generally one that roots for the laundry, but when I know it's literally just the laundry on the field, I can tell you I would be very unlikely to tune in.

[obiken]

A lot of it is jealousy on the part of the players, the NFL is the biggest brand in the US, but they are never going to make what NBA players make, and they need to get over it. No way the owners are going to pay players who are specialized in nature, and sustain too many injuries, not gonna happen. I think a compromise will be reached on one year guaranteed contracts, for most mid to high level players.

[RiverDog]

A lot of it is jealousy on the part of the players, the NFL is the biggest brand in the US, but they are never going to make what NBA players make, and they need to get over it. No way the owners are going to pay players who are specialized in nature, and sustain too many injuries, not gonna happen. I think a compromise will be reached on one year guaranteed contracts, for most mid to high level players.

If NFL players are jealous of basketball and baseball players, it's misplaced. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that NBA rosters are not only lots smaller, they have longer careers. Personally, I'd like to give the players a little more credit and argue that they're not that stupid so as to be motivated by jealousy of players in other sports.

https://www.businessinsider.com/chart-t ... ts-2013-10

[idhawkman]

So far, attendance has remained relatively steady, and with new stadiums opening in LA and Las Vegas next season, they'll probably get a little bump. But it would be dangerous to assume that attendance will always remain constant. MLB has seen a steady decline in attendance over the past few years, a reflection of increased competition for the entertainment dollar.

TV viewership has already been on the decline, and if this year's SB ratings are any indication, the league is skating on thin ice. An extended work stoppage could result in fans looking to other options for their limited entertainment dollars, and they might have a tough time getting them back.

It is in both sides interest not to have a work stoppage.

You make some good points. The viewership over the past few years "COULD" be attributed to the kneeling issue which I think is pretty much over. It will be interesting to see if the viewership comes back up this year and next which I'm sure both sides are going to be watching for.

Regarding the SB viewership, what does the NFL expect when neither team should have been there. I know that is why I didn't watch it and have refused to watch any replays of it on their network. That specific "game" to me is dead.

[idhawkman]

I'm generally one that roots for the laundry, but when I know it's literally just the laundry on the field, I can tell you I would be very unlikely to tune in.

That would be fair. I may not watch it as much as I do now but after a couple of drafts, I'd probably be right back to where I am now. It would take a little time to familiarize myself with a whole new roster of players and find who I like and who I could do without. What would take the bigger hit is fantasy football. How would you pick a team or players if you had no idea about any of them in the league?

Thinking about it, who benefits most from FF? Could the players go after some of that pie?

DISCLAIMER: I have never played FF so the two questions above are genuine even though they are from my ignorance of the whole thing.

[idhawkman]

A lot of it is jealousy on the part of the players, the NFL is the biggest brand in the US, but they are never going to make what NBA players make, and they need to get over it. No way the owners are going to pay players who are specialized in nature, and sustain too many injuries, not gonna happen. I think a compromise will be reached on one year guaranteed contracts, for most mid to high level players.

If NFL players are jealous of basketball and baseball players, it's misplaced. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that NBA rosters are not only lots smaller, they have longer careers. Personally, I'd like to give the players a little more credit and argue that they're not that stupid so as to be motivated by jealousy of players in other sports.

https://www.businessinsider.com/chart-t ... ts-2013-10

I could never figure out why dual sport athletes like RW choose football over baseball especially since the career of a baseball player is much longer than a football player and there's much fewer TBI incidents.

[NorthHawk]

Because it's not all about money.
Some players could be stars in one sport, but just journeymen in another.
Wilson wasn't the star in baseball as he is in football, so that's one example, and may be
a big reason why he chose football. Kyler Murray was a high draft pick in baseball, but
he chose football. I suspect he thinks he will be a bigger star in the NFL than he would
be in MLB.
That's just my guess, and there are various motivations for people who are lucky enough
to be able to make choices, including liking one sport more than another.

[idhawkman]

Because it's not all about money.
Some players could be stars in one sport, but just journeymen in another.
Wilson wasn't the star in baseball as he is in football, so that's one example, and may be
a big reason why he chose football. Kyler Murray was a high draft pick in baseball, but
he chose football. I suspect he thinks he will be a bigger star in the NFL than he would
be in MLB.
That's just my guess, and there are various motivations for people who are lucky enough
to be able to make choices, including liking one sport more than another.

Good points. I know I would struggle making a choice like this. I'd probably go with my head though and not my heart but I could also see why they go with their heart and not their head. Shoot, as I think about it, I may be choosing my head now just because I'm old. If I were young, I'd probably choose my heart like they do.

[RiverDog]

I could never figure out why dual sport athletes like RW choose football over baseball especially since the career of a baseball player is much longer than a football player and there's much fewer TBI incidents.

Russell was not good enough baseball player to get out of Class A. He was a good fielder, of which those players are a dime a dozen, but couldn't hit well enough. In football, he was good enough to start for not just one, but two Power 5 college football teams. Top that off by the fact that there are way, way more MLB prospects internationally and the odds for him making it in football was far better than in baseball, so it was a no brainer decision for him to focus on football.

[jshawaii22]

idhawkman wrote:
I could never figure out why dual sport athletes like RW choose football over baseball especially since the career of a baseball player is much longer than a football player and there's much fewer TBI incidents

Baseball: Generally very boring and long days
Football: Generally very exciting and fast paced days

Baseball: 162 games + a month or more in Arizona/Florida for spring training
Football: Far more limited schedules and requirements so you have much more time off

Baseball: Winter Off -- unless you're into skiing...
Football: Most of Spring & Summer off -- which would you rather have?

Baseball: Shrinking fan bases and limited media
Football: #2 sport in the world and far more popular then baseball --

Baseball: Far more harsher on Pot, Steroids, and general issues
Football: Stretch out even the simplest crimes and it's years before you get the first and second slaps on the wrists.

[burrrton]

Baseball: Generally very boring and long days
Football: Generally very exciting and fast paced days

Baseball: 162 games + a month or more in Arizona/Florida for spring training
Football: Far more limited schedules and requirements so you have much more time off

Baseball: Winter Off -- unless you're into skiing...
Football: Most of Spring & Summer off -- which would you rather have?

Baseball: Shrinking fan bases and limited media
Football: #2 sport in the world and far more popular then baseball --

Baseball: Far more harsher on Pot, Steroids, and general issues
Football: Stretch out even the simplest crimes and it's years before you get the first and second slaps on the wrists.

Hehe- not bad (and I was a baseball player).

[RiverDog]

So far, attendance has remained relatively steady, and with new stadiums opening in LA and Las Vegas next season, they'll probably get a little bump. But it would be dangerous to assume that attendance will always remain constant. MLB has seen a steady decline in attendance over the past few years, a reflection of increased competition for the entertainment dollar.

TV viewership has already been on the decline, and if this year's SB ratings are any indication, the league is skating on thin ice. An extended work stoppage could result in fans looking to other options for their limited entertainment dollars, and they might have a tough time getting them back.

It is in both sides interest not to have a work stoppage.

You make some good points. The viewership over the past few years "COULD" be attributed to the kneeling issue which I think is pretty much over. It will be interesting to see if the viewership comes back up this year and next which I'm sure both sides are going to be watching for.

Regarding the SB viewership, what does the NFL expect when neither team should have been there. I know that is why I didn't watch it and have refused to watch any replays of it on their network. That specific "game" to me is dead.

There's no doubt that part of the decline in viewership can be attributed to the kneeling issue, and I sure as hell hope it's pretty much over.

The poor ratings for 2019 SB wasn't an anomaly. The highest rated SB in history was SB 49 in 2015, us and the Pats, so the swoon was 3 years in the making before we got to that abomination of conference championship games last January.

The NFL is dying from the roots. Fewer and fewer colleges have football programs, and with all the safety issues that are inherent with the sport, parents are pushing their kids to less risky sports like soccer. Football is heading in the same direction boxing was 60 years ago when it was on national TV in the middle of work weeks. If there is a work stoppage, it will accelerate the decline and some of those casual fans may not come back. The players and owners are in danger of killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

[burrrton]

Football is heading in the same direction boxing was 60 years ago when it was on national TV in the middle of work weeks.

THAT... is a pretty good analogy, I'm afraid.

[obiken]

If NFL players are jealous of basketball and baseball players, it's misplaced. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that NBA rosters are not only lots smaller, they have longer careers. Personally, I'd like to give the players a little more credit and argue that they're not that stupid so as to be motivated by jealousy of players in other sports.
https://www.businessinsider.com/chart-t ... ts-2013-10

I agree River, but the NFL players see their BB friends driving around in Maserati's and they get jealous, its Human nature.

[RiverDog]

Football is heading in the same direction boxing was 60 years ago when it was on national TV in the middle of work weeks.

THAT... is a pretty good analogy, I'm afraid.

Many high schools had boxing as a varsity sport and any town of any size had at least one boxing club. For example, my cousin belonged to the Dayton (pop. 2,000) boxing club back in the early 60's. In Walla Walla, they used to have what they called "smokers" on Friday nights where they had 4 or 5 boxing matches in one night.

My dad used to tell me how boxing was on national TV 5 nights a week and how nearly every evening, you could go down to a bar and watch a boxing match. TV was in its infancy back then (late 40's-50's), so it was his first experience with the medium. He claimed that safety issues, ie a boxer named Bernie Parrot getting killed in the ring, and over exposure were the two key factors that led to the demise of the sport. I disagreed somewhat, felt that the straw that broke the camel's back is when they went to closed circuit TV, now known as pay per view, for most of the major boxing matches when they used to be on live prime time tv.

It might not be in my lifetime, but I see a day in which American football will be a thing of the past. My fear is that an extended work stoppage in this next CBA could hasten its decline, turn off marginal views, particularly Millennials, that have oodles of entertainment options available to them.

[NorthHawk]

I'm not sure boxing is an apt comparison.
In boxing, there are too many champions and it became sort of like pro wrestling
where it was a bit of a joke in that anyone could be named champion of the world.
It would be like the NFL having a world champion for each division. That just turns
people off. But there might be something to the idea of too much exposure.