CBA discussions

[Acantha]

I'm not sure I understand why FANS wouldn't want to go to the 18 game season. It's the same way that I wouldn't understand if someone told their wife that they wanted fewer BJs each month as opposed to more. Why wouldn't you want two more meaningful games during the season? If they don't go to an 18 game schedule, I hope they at least extend the season out to 8 weeks and give the teams two bye weeks. I want as much football as I can see, as often as possible dammit. How come some of you guy's don't?

The first year of 18 games the Bills would be in the playoffs after 16, then lose the final two and get knocked out.

 

Any change only offers new ways for the Bills to rip my heart out.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Faustus

[NoSaint]

I'm not sure I understand why FANS wouldn't want to go to the 18 game season. It's the same way that I wouldn't understand if someone told their wife that they wanted fewer BJs each month as opposed to more. Why wouldn't you want two more meaningful games during the season? If they don't go to an 18 game schedule, I hope they at least extend the season out to 8 weeks and give the teams two bye weeks. I want as much football as I can see, as often as possible dammit. How come some of you guy's don't?

 

When you look at how beat up teams are by week 14-15, I get the concern. I'd prefer 18, but hopefully with extra byes, some safety changes etc... I just don't want some trade where they do 17 and 1 of those is international (London, Mexico, Germany etc...) or neutral site (LA, traditional college venues etc...) if they add games I think ticket holders deserve them.

 

 

The records argument is embarassingly bad. Should we do away with all rule changes to preserve the integrity of them? Just silly. A past players performance can be honored and respected without being #1 in a cumulative total. Hell you can even look at numbers as an average per game if your that worried about a comparison point. Quality of the game trumps names in a book for me. I like that stuff, but..... (disclaimer - this may not improve the game but that's the discussion needed).

[ajzepp]

When you look at how beat up teams are by week 14-15, I get the concern. I'd prefer 18, but hopefully with extra byes, some safety changes etc... I just don't want some trade where they do 17 and 1 of those is international (London, Mexico, Germany etc...) or neutral site (LA, traditional college venues etc...) if they add games I think ticket holders deserve them.

 

 

The records argument is embarassingly bad. Should we do away with all rule changes to preserve the integrity of them? Just silly. A past players performance can be honored and respected without being #1 in a cumulative total. Hell you can even look at numbers as an average per game if your that worried about a comparison point. Quality of the game trumps names in a book for me. I like that stuff, but..... (disclaimer - this may not improve the game but that's the discussion needed).

 

Well, then just stretch the season out to 18 without adding extra games. I don't particularly care if the BILLS get two more games, I just want another week of football to watch. The more weekends where football is on the tv, the better IMO.

[SF Bills Fan]

An 18 game season....2 extra days a year where I have an excuse to go out and get drunk with my friends and the missus can't complain. Win.

[DisplacedBillsFan]

It was pointed out on the Doug Gottlieb show this afternoon that this extension is actually a fairly good sign because it means the 3rd party mediator feels the two sides are close enough to a deal that the extra week could be enough to come to an agreement.

[purple haze]

I'm not sure I understand why FANS wouldn't want to go to the 18 game season. It's the same way that I wouldn't understand if someone told their wife that they wanted fewer BJs each month as opposed to more. Why wouldn't you want two more meaningful games during the season? If they don't go to an 18 game schedule, I hope they at least extend the season out to 8 weeks and give the teams two bye weeks. I want as much football as I can see, as often as possible dammit. How come some of you guy's don't?

 

Easy. The best players in the world seem to barely make it through a 16 game schedule as it is. As players have gotten bigger, stronger and faster there are more injuries.

Having two more games, but devoid of the best the product has to offer, is worthless. Look at the Colts this season. It Manning, Wayne your uncle and my cousin after

a while. They have a perfect thing going right now. They can get rid of two pre season games or reduce prices for pre season games.

 

Also, the NFL is so great, and college ball as well because every week means something. Every game counts. There's not another hundred games to get it right. There's

no another 30 games to work out the kinks. The urgency created by the limited schedule in football is a unique thing. If it ain't broke don't try to fix it.

 

BTW, love football, but it doesn't compare to BJ's. That's an apples to oranges argument. LoL

Edited March 4, 2011 by purple haze

[ajzepp]

Easy. The best players in the world seem to barely make it through a 16 game schedule as it is. As players have gotten bigger, stronger and faster there are more injuries.

Having two more games, but devoid of the best the product has to offer, is worthless. Look at the Colts this season. It Manning, Wayne your uncle and my cousin after

a while. They have a perfect thing going right now. They can get rid of two pre season games or reduce prices for pre season games.

 

Also, the NFL is so great, and college ball as well because every week means something. Every game counts. There's not another hundred games to get it right. There's

no another 30 games to work out the kinks. The urgency created by the limited schedule in football is a unique thing. If it ain't broke don't try to fix it.

 

BTW, love football, but it doesn't compare to BJ's. That's an apples to oranges argument. LoL

 

 

Good point

[Doc]

You are correct that the increase in the percentage of revenues allocated to the players had little short-term effect, because most players were under contract. Any increase in the salary cap will have significantly greater long-term consequences than short-term effects.

Okay, I finally ran some numbers through a spreadsheet. It is incorrect that the increase in percentage of revenues allocated to players had little short-term effect, much less no effect as WEO claims.

 

The salary cap in 2004 was $80.5M, in 2005 it was $85.5M, and in 2006 it was supposed to be $94.5M, prior to the new CBA. That the cap went up by $9M between 2005 and 2006 and "only" went up by $5M between 2004 and 2005 reflected the new TV contracts. Taking $9M and multiplying it by 32 teams, you get a $288M increase in player expenditures because "the cap was going to increase anyway." After the new CBA was signed, the cap immediately went up another $7.5M, to $102M in 2006. Multiplying $7.5M by 32 and adding it to the $288M, you get $528M. Total player expenditures actually increased by $571.5M between 2005 and 2006.

 

The average teams spent on players in 2005 was $82.2M. In 2006 it was $100M. So yes, teams didn't spend to the cap limit in 2006 (and beyond), just like they didn't in 2005 (and before).

[John from Riverside]

What would more regular season games mean to my NFL sunday ticket.....its expensive NOW

[benderbender]

 

As players have gotten bigger, stronger and faster there are more injuries.

 

 

 

So they're in better shape physically. And the better physical shape you're in, the more easily injured you are?

 

 

[Orton's Arm]

Okay, I finally ran some numbers through a spreadsheet. It is incorrect that the increase in percentage of revenues allocated to players had little short-term effect, much less no effect as WEO claims.

 

The salary cap in 2004 was $80.5M, in 2005 it was $85.5M, and in 2006 it was supposed to be $94.5M, prior to the new CBA. That the cap went up by $9M between 2005 and 2006 and "only" went up by $5M between 2004 and 2005 reflected the new TV contracts. Taking $9M and multiplying it by 32 teams, you get a $288M increase in player expenditures because "the cap was going to increase anyway." After the new CBA was signed, the cap immediately went up another $7.5M, to $102M in 2006. Multiplying $7.5M by 32 and adding it to the $288M, you get $528M. Total player expenditures actually increased by $571.5M between 2005 and 2006.

 

The average teams spent on players in 2005 was $82.2M. In 2006 it was $100M. So yes, teams didn't spend to the cap limit in 2006 (and beyond), just like they didn't in 2005 (and before).

Thanks for looking into this in more detail and with more rigor than I had. After seeing your numbers, I agree with your conclusion.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Edwards' Arm

[Captain Hindsight]

So they're in better shape physically. And the better physical shape you're in, the more easily injured you are?

As Ron White once said, "if you get hit with a volvo.....doesnt really matter how many sit ups you did that morning"

[Hplarrm]

As a result of the CBA, only the salary cap went up. Players negotiating new contracts got whatever they and their team couls agree upon--just as before this particular CBA. There was no automatic bump in their contract value due to the CBA--if the owner thought the player was worth what he was asking and there now was a little more room in the higher cap, that player may have gotten a bit more than he would have otherwise. Before or after the 2006 CBA--and forever more, the vast majority of the cap space is tied up in a relatively few players on each team.

 

The point is not moot, because even if the majority of the players did not enjoy any fruits of the last CBA, they won't give back what they think they got. Plus, with the face of the league now being Manning, Brady and Brees (the posterboys of the higher cap beneficiaries), that will be their stand.

 

 

Since that CBA is history, there will be no more long-term effect as contracts get renegotiated going forward. PLenty of teams have been abusing the cap anyway they can (Redskins for sure)--it has done nothing for them. MLB has had more different champs in the past decade than the NFL.

 

The cap isn't going away. The cap increased less than 10% as a result of the last CBA--look at the spending behavior of all the teams. In the year after the signing, everyone went up. But many teams had a downward trend on spending as the years followed--even the higher revenue teams.

 

My source is the only one that I know of--Forbes annual NFL valuations. A few here have challenged these numbers (with no facts of their own), but I don't see anyone of significance saying these numbers are fantasy.

So are you arguing here that the players also should be pushing to revise the CBA and not simply the owners in order to get a better CBA which actually distributes money to the full NFLPA.

 

Your greater understanding of the economics here raises some interesting questions for those with less knowledge and whatever you can do to explain it would be helpful.

 

1. Why did the owners unilaterally push to get the CBA reopened if the current cap number does little beyond the escalating take to increase player salaries except for those who are due for new contracts?

 

2. You are correct that teams do not have to spend up to the cap so it is voluntary in that regard. However, the active item which is not voluntary is that there is a minimum % of the cap which teams must spend or be subject to fine. It is actually that definite fear of crossing the minimum which has raised salaries of most NFL players. Is your description of the cap as voluntary only true for for reaching the max but not for maintaining a minimum which assures balance and actually drives salaries up.

 

3. The NFL is simply not a free market in important ways. You do realize this don't you and see the significance of this fact in driving up and distributing cash payments. The Bills are actually a team which needs to keep ladling out money in salaries to avoid the minimum (to some extent this explains the travesties to Kelsay, Dockery and Walker and then this had an impact on the contract demands and give aways to folks under contract like Schobel and Peters. Your new contract dictum is not nearly as pristine as you describe it.

 

4. Enough player are earning the minimum and then demonstrating interest above the minimum is immediately wratcheded up. So the increases in the minimum built into the CBA are significant.

 

These are just a few things the doctrinaire view you seem to take does not fit reality.

 

Overall the Dody decision was a big thing despite the yelps of those who claim it is not simply due to the timing which gave momentum to the player negotiators and hurt unity in terms of dealing with distraction at exactly the moment of the deadline when the deal gets cut.

 

Saying it means nothing comes off as simple whistling in the dark.

[The Senator]

As Ron White once said, "if you get hit with a volvo.....doesnt really matter how many sit ups you did that morning"

He should have said, "If you get hit BY a Volvo..."

[RayFinkle]

So they're in better shape physically. And the better physical shape you're in, the more easily injured you are?

The contact is harsher. There is also the school of thought that back in the day, guys carried more fat on them. That fat helped cushion things. Nowadays guys are wound up so tight with 5% body fat, I'm not surprised by the number of injuries.

[agardin]

How about the top 8 teams getting into the playoffs top 4 get a bye and the bottom 4 play a wild card game no division winner seeds. This would increase the revenues the NFL wants, it is only an extra game for two teams that would want to play them anyway, the ratings would be better which is the main revenue driver for the league and it would increase the number of games that may matter. Think about it, the BIlls may not be mathematically eliminated before Halloween. Sure, it would dilute the caliber of teams making the playoffs but the current system has problems see the Seahawks.

 

Check out the top 8 from last year. I wouldn't mind if these teams made it in.

 

http://www.nfl.com/standings?category=conf

[ThurmasThoman]

The first year of 18 games the Bills would be in the playoffs after 16, then lose the final two and get knocked out.

 

Any change only offers new ways for the Bills to rip my heart out.

 

The first year of 18 games the Bills would be in the playoffs after 16, then lose the final two and get knocked out.

 

Any change only offers new ways for the Bills to rip my heart out.

 

a scenario my (patriot fan) friends have been mocking me mercilessly for since the concept was proposed.

 

let me tell you why, as a bills fan, you should hope we come out of this with 18 games on our schedule next year.

 

as we all know, for the 2002 season, the NFL realigned the league, creating 4 divisions in each conference, with 4 teams in each division. the effect of this realignment on "parity" has actually been pretty alarming (statistically speaking.) in the 9 seasons since realignment, the average win total for the top seed in the american football conference has jumped a full game, from 13 to 14 wins, while the average win total for the 6th place team in the conference (or the final wild card spot,) has also increased a full game, from 9 to 10 wins.

 

what does this mean, and why is it happening? in essence, the good/great teams are no longer being "penalized" with a tougher schedule, while the bottom feeders are no longer being "rewarded" with cream puff opponents. added into this is the fact that before realignment, half of a team's regular season games were played against divisional opponents, whereas now, only 6 out of 16 games are played within the division.

 

the fact of the matter is, our last place buffalo bills can not (statistically) catch a break. ever. our strength of schedule last year was brutal, and our common opponents with the patriots, just like every year since alignment, was a staggering 14 out of 16 opponents! the rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor.

 

when the league realigned in 2002, the patriots were at the top of the division, and the bills were at the bottom. 9 seasons later, the patriots are at the top of the division, and the bills are at the bottom. now, i recognize that the self-flagellation of bills fans is endless, so feel free to respond that our decade of futility is aaron maybin, tom donahoe, modrak, russ brandon, trent edwards, etc. etc.

 

know this though: if the schedule does increase to 18 games, and those 2 additional games are different for divisional winners/divisional cellar dwellers, it becomes almost a statistical certainty that the bills will return to the playoffs, sooner, rather than later.

[Doc]

Thanks for looking into this in more detail and with more rigor than I had. After seeing your numbers, I agree with your conclusion.

The numbers definitively prove that the owners gave up a lot more money with the 2006 CBA. And it's intuitive that this is all just a fight over money. The owners were able to skim $1B before, and now want to skim $2B. But again, why they don't go back to the way the CBA used to be is curious. There is no rule that say the players need to be paid based on total revenue, versus just shared revenue.

 

Also what I found interesting is that the NFLPA was/is serious about decertifying. If they do that, the owners would ostensibly get their "lockout insurance" money. But I guess they realize that the owners are still in a better position even without that money, and their only real threat is an antitrust lawsuit, which apparently the owners are taking seriously, hence the extension.

[RevWarRifleman]

With the question over the 18 game season, how about a different scenario with that? Could there be a do-able format that, say, the number of playoff teams in each conference be expanded to 2 more teams? Yeh I know that would expand the possibility of having more 7-9 teams making the playoffs, but the playoff season would be longer (fans would like that). More teams would be playing in the playoffs (those cities as well as their fans would like that). And therefore only a handful of teams would be playing longer, not the whole league. There could be a by week at the end of the regular 16 game season, then the playoffs starting w/ the lowest placed Wild card teams. I haven't really sat down and thought this out thoroughly from a technical standpoint. Its just an idea in priciple. I'm not for an 18 game season across the board. That's too brutal & will shorten a lot of careers. What do you think?

[agardin]

great minds think alike, see my post two spots above. I think this is the scenario that the league and players will end up with it makes sense on a lot of levels and would produce the extra revenue the league is looking for.