Tuco

All the good teams defer, and it makes sense for all the reasons above. The bad teams also defer because they want to be like the good teams. Deferring is a great idea, but if you go on to allow a long TD drive to start the game and then start the 2nd half with a quick 3 and out, you're beating yourself over the head trying to act like a good team. Should we defer? Of course we should. But I don't know how many times during our 17 year playoff hiatus we did just exactly what I described above, nor am I going to try to look it up. But it happened a lot, especially the 3 and out in the 2nd. Nothing blows your whole game plan, strategy, momentum and juju-mojo like going 3 and out to start the 2nd half. And deferring to have the wind at your back to start the game doesn't work very well if you give up a nine and a half minute touchdown drive to start the game.

The league sends a noise loop to each team that has to be played at an exact decibel level. Fines to teams and responsible personnel and loss of draft picks are the penalty for not adhering. https://twitter.com/TomPelissero/status/1301653002390994945/photo/1

I should edit this. During the years before they made the rule where you could bring guys back from IR if they made the 53 it didn't happen because there was no reason for it to. But before the salary cap, when that rule saying every IR player was gone for the whole season, it happened a lot. As in, every team would do it with 3-4 players every year. I guess I'm showing my age.

This has been going on for 50 years (probably more). I'm pretty sure both sides are okay with it.

It always happens with every team. It's been happening for about 40 years that I know of. Last year's example was cutting safety Kurt Coleman, putting Croom on IR after he made the 53 and then resigning Coleman.

Has it been mentioned anywhere that if a player misses a game without having an injury or some other CBA accepted excuse he doesn't just lose 1/17 of his salary? He loses 25% of it, including 25% of prorated amounts of signing bonuses and roster bonuses. Dak Prescott would be giving up $7.75 million. Stefon Diggs - $2.95 million. Of course for every high paid player there's a dozen or so who make much less. Is Zack Moss going to give up $209,650 of his $610,000 for a one game protest? One would think if the players were that serious about effecting change they could find a better use for that money besides giving it back to their employer. Now if the NFLPA is talking to the league about somehow doing this without that kind of retribution, then it would no longer be a wildcat strike. It would just be a thing agreed to by both sides.

The cap is not going up next year. It will be $175 million.

He will un-retire on or about September 5th.

I'm reminded of a story I once heard about Joe Montana playing in Kansas City after all his years in San Fran. Occasionally during the game he would belt out an audible to a play he knew would be better, but his teammates would look at him like he was nuts because he would revert to the San Fran verbiage out of habit..

Active PUP is what they get put on in training camp. As soon as the player is cleared to practice he comes off the list and can practice immediately. The inactive list (actually reserve PUP) is what the player has to go on if he can't start the regular season. At that point the player is ineligible to play or practice for 6 weeks. Active PUP counts against the applicable 80/90 man roster etc. Reserve PUP does not count against the 53 man roster.

All the wiggle room they need exists. There is no force mejeure clause. But there is a clause that says if there is a significant cap drop because of missed games then both sides are bound to work out an agreement that is fair to both sides. Everything after that is speculation because nobody knows right now exactly what's going to happen yet. When it does happen then they will have solid numbers to work with. And yes it's been discussed and seems most likely that any significant drop in next year's cap would most likely be agreed to spread it out over several years. Now if the season were to be totally cancelled that would certainly be an obstacle. Without a force mejeure clause it will become an ugly battle with most likely protracted court decisions, etc. But again, nobody knows. There are no simple answers to these questions right now. Wait and see is pretty much all we can do at this point. Here's pretty much the only language in the CBA, and it leaves a wide open field of what ultimately may or may not happen. NOTE: The term "AR" refers to "All Revenue" as defined in the CBA as the amount agreed upon each year on which to base the salary cap- (xii) Cancelled Games. If one or more weeks of any NFL season are cancelled or AR for any League Year substantially decreases, in either case due to a terrorist or military action, natural disaster, or similar event, the parties shall engage in good faith negotiations to adjust the provisions of this Agreement with respect to the projection of AR and the Salary Cap for the following League Year so that AR for the following League Year is projected in a fair manner consistent with the changed revenue projection caused by such action.

First of all, before the cap goes up in 2021 it's going to go down. The cap is computed each year on projected revenues, plus or minus any adjustments made to the actual revenue from the previous season's revenues, in relation to how far off that projection was from the real thing. This year's revenue is going to be largely, hugely, bigly over projected. That already means a drop in next year's cap just to make up for that adjustment. Yes it can be renegotiated in the event of a catastrophe, but rest assured any new deal isn't going to wind up with the players getting any larger percentage in the long haul. More likely they will negotiate a prorating of next year's cap loss over the next 5 years or something. But it will go down before it goes up. Now as far as adding 3 games on Saturday, I don't see where that would add anywhere near 50% to the existing TV revenue. I can see some increase, maybe. But there's only 16 games a week now, and the "regular" Sunday game networks already are able to protect a certain amount of games from being flexed out of their time slots because with all the prime time games now their slate of "marketable" games sometimes gets quite thin. Would all Saturday games be considered prime time? So would there be 6/7 out of 16 (at most) games every week played in prime time? And if so will the networks who already lose games to prime time sit idly by while they lose more? Or are they the ones who will be expected to pay more for the games they already pay for, many of which aren't very attractive and only appear in each team's home market? Sorry I'm seeing a lot of unconnected dots that lead to a big jump in the 2021 cap.

FWIW the CBA has always contained special rules to be able to use practice squad players with out all the normal rules (like the 3 week minimums and having to clear waivers before being re-signed to the squad, etc.) in the event of a team is hit by a contagious disease.

The CBA already carries provisions for contagious diseases. All practice squad players (there's what, 14 now?) contracts include a contagious disease addendum which modify the rules regarding bringing practice squad players up to the 53 man roster in the event a team is given roster exemptions in the event of a contagious disease outbreak - including allowing the team to bring them up for a single week instead of the guaranteed 3 weeks. And also allowing the team to place the player back on the PS without having to clear waivers. Basically if a team has an outbreak of a contagious disease and gets roster exemptions from the league for said players, they will be allowed to use the PS players as regular players without the usual restrictions associated with promoting PS players to the 53 man roster and plcing them back on the PS again. This has been a rule in the CBA for years.

Counting playoffs and preseasons, right around 200. But I only live 30 miles away.

First of all the Yahoo article is crap. Schefter never says anything about 50%. Schefter says $3.2 Billion - or $30-$80 million. Then further down Yahoo writes about the salary cap being at least $120 mil since 2012. That's where the $50% figure comes from. In reality, let's say it is $3.2 billion. That's a nice round $100 million per team. And the salary cap is roughly 49% of that. Except it isn't. The 49% figure the players share includes all player costs, including insurance payments, pension contributions etc. Once all that is figured, then the salary cap for the year is figured. Regardless, if the figure is $3.2 billion, the cap would go down a large percentage of roughly 49% of that. So let's say it goes down $40 million. Yes that's a lot, but it's really only around 20%. That's not great for all parties involved, but it's certainly manageable. And no the league doesn't have a force mejeure clause. They do have a clause that states both parties will bargain in good faith to adjust the cap if games are missed. And they also have the ability to go back and redo the agreement any time if needed. So it's entirely possible they could look at the final numbers and then agree to prorate a $30-$40 million reduction over 5 years or whatever. It's not going to be $50 percent and the Yahoo writer is a tool for saying so. My $.02

Clearly it's "Black 20! Black 20! WHASSUP?!"

The changes in the new CBA regarding guarantees and salary amount factoring don't go into effect until next year. All fifth-year options for players drafted in the first round of 2017 are still governed under the same rules as the old CBA.

Time will tell. It's one thing to be unhappy with a CBA that you voted against but were outnumbered. I've been there a number of times. But if what he says is true - and it seems unlikely he would make it up - this is some serious bull cookies on the part of the NFL. Of course they will say it was a clerical error and the wrong copy was sent out or some other nonsense. Then again, they wouldn't really think all 2,000 players and a whole lot of retired players wouldn't notice something like that . . . . would they?

Whatever rules MLB has do not apply to the NFL. On November 13 2019 Vernon Hargreaves was waived by Tampa Bay, claimed by Houston, and played in both playoff games for Houston, being credited with 6 solo tackles and 1 QB hit in the game against Buffalo. That's just one example I found with a quick internet search. And NFL players get claimed after September 1st all the time, and when in the history of the NFL have we ever heard of one not being able to play in the playoffs? Never. Not once.

Wrong. Any player with less than 4 years released this time of year, or any time of year, absolutely goes through waivers.

Gotcha.

They all get paid extra for the extra game. It's part of the agreement.

I wouldn't lose too much sleep worrying about it happening. But if it makes you happy, go for it. Going back 16 years, the record of the extra teams that would have made the playoffs under the 14 team format-11-5 ------ 1 time10-6 ------ 7 times9-6-1 ----- 1 time9-7 -------- 14 times8-7-1 ----- 1 time8-8 -------- 8 timesAlso, FWIW-In the years the 10-6 teams would have made it, there was (1) 10-6 team from the same conference that still would not have made it.In the years the 9-7 teams would have made it, there were also (12) 9-7 teams from the same conference that still would not have made it.In the years the 8-8 teams would have made it, there were (7) 8-8 teams from the same conference that still would not have made it.

All I can add is I read there is a "media kicker" that will increase the players' share of revenue from 48% to 48.8% if the TV contracts increase by a certain amount. And according to what I read, none of that increase can be affected by the stadium credits given through the stadium construction program (G4). So I have to assume it's still there, either the same as before or something similar.