Gambling could renew push for 18-game season

[youngosu]

26 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said:

Real question. At this point, (seeing as how most players are totally against an 18 game season) is there really enough bargaining chips on the table that the owners would be willing to even give up, realistically?

I'm really asking because I'm sitting here trying to think of some realistic offers and I'm drawing a blank. But maybe I'm not thinking of everything either.  

 

12.5% increase to all contracts

Increase to salary cap of greater than 12.5% 

Moving to a 60 man roster (224 more jobs)

2 bye weeks

Shorter preseason

Eliminate the franchise/transition tags

Greater medical benefits for players after their careers

What I find amusing is that Eric Winston says 18 games is DOA because of safety yet is open to adding playoff games which are games players get paid very little for and have the same safety issue. Honestly seems more like a negotiating tactic more than them being against playing more games. If the money is right the players will gladly sign off on adding 2 games. Rather the owners are willing to offer that money is another question. I think the next CBA negotiation may be ugly. The NFL has dominated the NFLPA for decades and I think some players are getting sick of it. 

 

 

[Woz]

35 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said:

Real question. At this point, (seeing as how most players are totally against an 18 game season) is there really enough bargaining chips on the table that the owners would be willing to even give up, realistically?

I'm really asking because I'm sitting here trying to think of some realistic offers and I'm drawing a blank. But maybe I'm not thinking of everything either.  

 

I am in the same boat as you. While in theory there could be something that could make the players agree to 18 games, I'm not seeing what it is.

Another sticking point: all of the contracts to date have been designed with 16 games in mind. It's not just that there are two more games that need to be added to the player's paychecks. Think about incentives for percentage of snaps played (becomes harder to hit) or per-active roster bonuses (do the players automatically get two more checks or does the bonus get split 18 ways as opposed to 16?). Other incentives might become easier to make: bonuses for numbers of receptions or touchdowns. Those minute points are going to be hard to overcome and are going to gum up the works to get to 18 games above and beyond the health aspect.

I honestly don't see a path forward that the players would accept barring some MASSIVE concession from the owners (maybe shifting the revenue pie back to the players? of course that caused the lockout so that's doubtful).

[Woz]

2 minutes ago, youngosu said:

12.5% increase to all contracts

Not necessarily. I'm sure the owners would just like to split the contracts 18 ways instead of 16. The players will obviously disagree.

Likely, they'll have to meet somewhere in the middle (probably closer to the players side), but not a guarantee the players get that bump.

4 minutes ago, youngosu said:

Increase to salary cap of greater than 12.5% 

Again, not necessarily. Depends on how the structure the revenues.

5 minutes ago, youngosu said:

Moving to a 60 man roster (224 more jobs)

That's not something the owners are going to be happy about since A) that means more money flowing out of their pockets, and B) will likely cause inflation for the guys who were on the 53 prior to that.

Also, have to figure they will try not to increase the active game roster size or if they do increase it, by only a couple of players.

7 minutes ago, youngosu said:

2 bye weeks

Shorter preseason

Eliminate the franchise/transition tags

Greater medical benefits for players after their careers

These are all things that the players will likely be going after in the next round of negotiations even if they don't increase beyond 16 games.

Take the franchise/transition tags. While irritating to the tagged players, it isn't something that affects the vast majority of the union. More likely, the players will move towards no more than two back-to-back tags (or maybe no back-to-back tags at all?) and no more than three tags in a player's career (regardless of team).

Or the shorter preseason. While that means fewer meaningless games, is that really a major concession from the owners? As you and others have pointed out, they'll get more revenues from regular season games than from preseason. It also means that the guys at the bottom of the roster will have a harder time making the final 53/60/whatever.

12 minutes ago, youngosu said:

What I find amusing is that Eric Winston says 18 games is DOA because of safety yet is open to adding playoff games which are games players get paid very little for and have the same safety issue.

Because the players get bonus checks for making the playoffs, and have meaning for a run at a championship as opposed two extra games that for the majority of the teams means nothing because they're eliminated already?

13 minutes ago, youngosu said:

Honestly seems more like a negotiating tactic more than them being against playing more games. If the money is right the players will gladly sign off on adding 2 games.

Years ago, maybe.

Now that players are making MASSIVELY bigger contracts (even adjusting for inflation) than they were in the 70s (when they went from 14 to 16 games), I think the health angle will matter more to the rank and file than the extra cash.

14 minutes ago, youngosu said:

Rather the owners are willing to offer that money is another question. I think the next CBA negotiation may be ugly. The NFL has dominated the NFLPA for decades and I think some players are getting sick of it. 

Uhh, the reason the 2011 lockout happened was that the owners felt that the players got way too good of a deal from them in the previous negotiation round.

[youngosu]

9 minutes ago, Woz said:

 

Uhh, the reason the 2011 lockout happened was that the owners felt that the players got way too good of a deal from them in the previous negotiation round.

I know what the reason for the 2011 lockout was, doesn't mean the owners were right. Compare the deal the NFLPA gets vs. the other 3 leagues and its quite clear that the NFL has been kicking the NFLPA's *** for decades. Frankly the NFLPA should be embarrassed.

 

 

As for the rest of your post, of course those are all negotiating points. I was simply stating what it would probably take and while NFL players make a lot more money today than they did in the 70's the vast majority of them are not the stars and won't make millions, those guys will need to get another job after their careers end so the ability to add another couple hundred thousand to their career earnings is still a pretty significant incentive. 

[Woz]

5 minutes ago, youngosu said:

As for the rest of your post, of course those are all negotiating points. I was simply stating what it would probably take and while NFL players make a lot more money today than they did in the 70's the vast majority of them are not the stars and won't make millions, those guys will need to get another job after their careers end so the ability to add another couple hundred thousand to their career earnings is still a pretty significant incentive. 

Which will be weighed against the possibility of higher medical costs by playing those extra games.

Honestly, barring maybe giving something ridiculous (say 70% of net profits) on the gambling revenue to the players (with a guaranteed payment floor and good faith negotiation clause), I don't see what the owners can give the players that would lead them to two extra games simply because sports betting can now be legal in more states than just Nevada.

[youngosu]

9 minutes ago, Woz said:

Which will be weighed against the possibility of higher medical costs by playing those extra games.

Honestly, barring maybe giving something ridiculous (say 70% of net profits) on the gambling revenue to the players (with a guaranteed payment floor and good faith negotiation clause), I don't see what the owners can give the players that would lead them to two extra games simply because sports betting can now be legal in more states than just Nevada.

Which is why I included better health benefits as one of my negotiating points. 

For a minimum salary player over a first contract 12.5% is over 250K in those 4 years. I think a lot of NFL players would happily play 8 more games for 250K. At the very least its not nothing. And a lot of the league's players are playing for the minimum. 

I believe the median salary in the NFL is under a million dollars still (around 850K) so their are lots of players that could use a 12.5% raise. 

[JAF-N72EX]

8 minutes ago, youngosu said:

Which is why I included better health benefits as one of my negotiating points. 

For a minimum salary player over a first contract 12.5% is over 250K in those 4 years. I think a lot of NFL players would happily play 8 more games for 250K. At the very least its not nothing. And a lot of the league's players are playing for the minimum. 

I believe the median salary in the NFL is under a million dollars still (around 850K) so their are lots of players that could use a 12.5% raise. 

A 12.5% increase is not enough for players to even begin to consider an 18-game season. 

250k may seem like alot of money but to an NFL athlete it is literally nothing to them in the scheme of things. Especially over a 4 year period (also think contracts based on draft status). While players may make a good living, financially, the cost of being an NFL player is not cheap by any means either. People see these huge contracts in the headlines but they don't realize just how much of that money they will never even set eyes on because it's gone before it even reaches their pockets. Travel expenses, agent costs(2.5% avg.), financial advisors, etc. All costs money. And the most blood bleeder of them all, are taxes. Not only do they have to pay taxes in every state that they live in(which can be as much as ~50%). They also have to pay taxes in states where they play AND practice. And literally by the day(24 hours). And those are only the things that come off the top of my head right now. There is much more than that.

That 250k is no where near enough to persuade them. 

[JAF-N72EX]

1 hour ago, Woz said:

I am in the same boat as you. While in theory there could be something that could make the players agree to 18 games, I'm not seeing what it is.

Another sticking point: all of the contracts to date have been designed with 16 games in mind. It's not just that there are two more games that need to be added to the player's paychecks. Think about incentives for percentage of snaps played (becomes harder to hit) or per-active roster bonuses (do the players automatically get two more checks or does the bonus get split 18 ways as opposed to 16?). Other incentives might become easier to make: bonuses for numbers of receptions or touchdowns. Those minute points are going to be hard to overcome and are going to gum up the works to get to 18 games above and beyond the health aspect.

I honestly don't see a path forward that the players would accept barring some MASSIVE concession from the owners (maybe shifting the revenue pie back to the players? of course that caused the lockout so that's doubtful).

Yep, I was thinking along teh same lines when I was trying to think of ways that could possibly be intriguing to the players. Every time my mind would also go back to "this approach would cost too much for the owners so that won't work". I do wonder how much more it would cost a team on a per snap basis with 2 more games though...

[youngosu]

57 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said:

A 12.5% increase is not enough for players to even begin to consider an 18-game season. 

250k may seem like alot of money but to an NFL athlete it is literally nothing to them in the scheme of things. Especially over a 4 year period (also think contracts based on draft status). While players may make a good living, financially, the cost of being an NFL player is not cheap by any means either. People see these huge contracts in the headlines but they don't realize just how much of that money they will never even set eyes on because it's gone before it even reaches their pockets. Travel expenses, agent costs(2.5% avg.), financial advisors, etc. All costs money. And the most blood bleeder of them all, are taxes. Not only do they have to pay taxes in every state that they live in(which can be as much as ~50%). They also have to pay taxes in states where they play AND practice. And literally by the day(24 hours). And those are only the things that come off the top of my head right now. There is much more than that.

That 250k is no where near enough to persuade them. 

Okay, your logic never ceases to amaze me. 

You list all these reasons why NFL athletes aren't making all that much money (which I agree with BTW) but than conclude that they wouldn't be interested in a 12.5% pay raise. That's some *** backwards logic right there. 

And sorry but 250K is not "literally nothing" to someone making the minimum in the NFL. Its literally a 12.5% pay raise.

And that 12.5% pay raise was not everything they'd be getting if you go back and read the other things they'd likely ask for. 

Not only that but for the majority of NFL players (non-starters) its not even really adding much to their workload assuming 2 preseason games are eliminated because they are playing in those games anyhow. A 12.5% pay raise plus larger rosters seems pretty appealing to a guy whose just trying to survive for a few years in the league (which is the majority of the players represented by the NFLPA)

[JAF-N72EX]

7 minutes ago, youngosu said:

Okay, your logic never ceases to amaze me. 

You list all these reasons why NFL athletes aren't making all that much money (which I agree with BTW) but than conclude that they wouldn't be interested in a 12.5% pay raise. That's some *** backwards logic right there. 

The 12% pay raise does not overshadow the negatives of playing an 18-game season.
 

11 minutes ago, youngosu said:

And sorry but 250K is not "literally nothing" to someone making the minimum in the NFL. Its literally a 12.5% pay raise.

Why? Take all factors into consideration?

17 minutes ago, youngosu said:

And that 12.5% pay raise was not everything they'd be getting if you go back and read the other things they'd likely ask for

 And none of which are realistic enough and/or not suggestions that owners would even be willing to to offer.  

[JAF-N72EX]

3 hours ago, youngosu said:

"Couldn't disagree with this more, the best reason to move to 18 games is so you can get rid of the unbalanced schedules. 18 games means every team could play their division opponents twice (6 games), every team in 2 divisions of their conference (8 games), and 1 division from the other conference (4 games).  You could even set it up so with the exception of interconference games everyone has the same home/away schedules. Every team in each division plays the same opponents, no more easier/harder schedules."

You think if every team in each division plays the same opponents that there will be no more easier/harder schedules?!? How can you not see the flawed logic behind this? 

There are always going to be good and bad teams every year....otherwise we wouldn't even know which teams were good or bad teams to begin with. So how does this solve any of that? You can't have up without down, right without left, bad without evil, black without white, day without dark, etc, etc .You're living in a fantasy utopia world. 

What you're asking for, during your (unnecessary) quest for total equality, is that each team play every team in the league. 

[youngosu]

7 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

You think if every team in each division plays the same opponents that there will be no more easier/harder schedules?!? How can you not see the flawed logic behind this? 

There are always going to be good and bad teams every year....otherwise we wouldn't even know which teams were good or bad teams to begin with. So how does this solve any of that? You can't have up without down, right without left, bad without evil, black without white, day without dark, etc, etc .You're living in a fantasy utopia world. 

What you're asking for, during your (unnecessary) quest for total equality, is that each team play every team in the league. 

Ummm.....If everyone in the NFC West plays an identical schedule, everyone in the NFC West would have the same SOS. Its not the complicated. 

And at no point have I asked that "each team play every team in the league" and only an illogical troll (ie you) could think that is what I have asked for. You are so stupid my brain literally hurts from reading your illogical stupidity. 

I have asked that every team in each division play the same schedule as the other teams in their division because that is typically the whole point of having divisions to begin with. 

Its not about rather the NFC East has an easier schedule than the NFC West (that will get settled in the playoffs), its about ensuring everyone in each division has the same SOS. 

You can't possibly be this stupid can you? I guess since you are nothing but a troll you can be. 

The NHL's Eastern conference (and the West will once Seattle enters the league) plays a balanced schedule so guess what? It can be done. Quite easily actually. Its not "fantasy"

[youngosu]

8 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

The 12% pay raise does not overshadow the negatives of playing an 18-game season.
 

Why? Take all factors into consideration?

 And none of which are realistic enough and/or not suggestions that owners would even be willing to to offer.  

How do you know what is "enough"?

And its a 12.5% pay raise even with "all the factors"

Now, I am done with your stupid trolling. You aren't even bright enough to understand the idea of divisions so you clearly have no clue what you are talking about on any topic. You are nothing but a pathetic troll with no logical thought whatsoever.