aristocrat Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 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 with pitt winning the title as a wild card and i think indy did it as well you can make the case that it would make the playoffs better. more teams in the playoffs is def a great idea.
CodeMonkey Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 (edited) What would more regular season games mean to my NFL sunday ticket.....its expensive NOW Come on now. We all know that the real reason there might be a lockout is because there is only 9.3 billion dollars to split between players and owners. That is not nearly enough. You should be honored to give more of your money to them. They need it much more than you do after all. Edited March 6, 2011 by CodeMonkey
bills1960 Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Quick question for all the people who actually understand this stuff? In the end, when this is all finished, will the Bills benefit from this CBA, get screwed by it or will it be neutral add why.
boyst Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Quick question for all the people who actually understand this stuff? In the end, when this is all finished, will the Bills benefit from this CBA, get screwed by it or will it be neutral add why. I've been listening to Sirius a lot recently and have been understanding that part of the biggest hold up is that the owners are having just as hard of time agreeing on how to spend the money as they are agreeing with the players. I have no doubt this is true, we already know Jones and Snyders viewpoint, and it was mentioned that Al Davis is against both of their ideas on how to share revenue. The thoughts are coming out that the more profitable teams want more of the money from the league. The players on Sirius who have been interviewed, whether they are Union Reps or just members have been saying to their understanding the NFL has not offered any type of contract at this point. I have a hard time believing that the NFL is at all in a position to agree with themselves let alone with the Union.
bills1960 Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 I've been listening to Sirius a lot recently and have been understanding that part of the biggest hold up is that the owners are having just as hard of time agreeing on how to spend the money as they are agreeing with the players. I have no doubt this is true, we already know Jones and Snyders viewpoint, and it was mentioned that Al Davis is against both of their ideas on how to share revenue. The thoughts are coming out that the more profitable teams want more of the money from the league. The players on Sirius who have been interviewed, whether they are Union Reps or just members have been saying to their understanding the NFL has not offered any type of contract at this point. I have a hard time believing that the NFL is at all in a position to agree with themselves let alone with the Union. So it really depends on how the NFL ends up pleasing the owners on how much each team should get?
Kkspike Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 The players are not gonna go for 18 games. 2 extra games played on a 16 week contract. They get 12 g for preseason game. 16 week season with 2 bye weeks.
boyst Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 So it really depends on how the NFL ends up pleasing the owners on how much each team should get? That is my understanding. If Jerry Jones wants 51% of his teams revenue and only 49% goes to the NFL that lowers the overall amount of the leagues money by quite a bit. The team is valued at 1.8 billion with an income over 420 million in 2009. The operating income was 143 mill. The owners are fighting over more money then the players, in one sense. Jones has a new stadium to worry about paying for and will face trouble paying off loans if he cannot have games on Sunday, so in the same hand, he also wants to settle this. The Bills have little leverage. A fat contract from Tor. to play games in a Stadium we do not run, with a stadium that probably has the lowest amount of leveraged costs, and a team that is lower in market value then almost all of the other teams.
Simon Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Quick question for all the people who actually understand this stuff? In the end, when this is all finished, will the Bills benefit from this CBA, get screwed by it or will it be neutral add why. Neutral. Cuz they'll be playing under the same rules as everybody else. Rule: Draft good ballplayers and you win. Don't, and you lose.
Damian Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 This topic is not about OJ. If the CBA does expire, I am assuming that means no more random drug screening for NFL players. With no monitoring to stop them (or at least keep them on lower, more easily hid steroid juicing cycles), I am thinking a a good percentage of players will be hitting the steroids hard. Watch for players who come into camp, after the new CBA is agreed upon, whose muscle weight has jumped significantly compared to last years playing weight. This will really benefit the players rehabbing after a injury/surgery, they will be able to rebuild their strength much more quickly. Think of our long list of players on IR or players that have had serious injuries (Wood, Merriman)and maybe a little juice will benefit the Bills.
UConn James Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 If the PED testing requirement is dropped in whatever comes out of a new CBA, expect Congress to start making overtures, just as they did in baseball. And they'd be right, to prevent 100,000 present and former players with roid-rage/TBI and millions of high-school/college minions doing the same. Even with the relatively little we know so far, it presents too serious a risk to the broader populace to let it go unfettered.
machinegun12 Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 If the PED testing requirement is dropped in whatever comes out of a new CBA, expect Congress to start making overtures, just as they did in baseball. And they'd be right, to prevent 100,000 present and former players with roid-rage/TBI and millions of high-school/college minions doing the same. Even with the relatively little we know so far, it presents too serious a risk to the broader populace to let it go unfettered. I think he's saying players are gonna juice during the lockout itself, not if the new CBA has no PED testing included in it (which I think has a 0% chance of happening).
Mr. WEO Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 The owners will absolutely still test. They would be crazy not to.
Captain Hindsight Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 The owners will absolutely still test. They would be crazy not to. If there is a lockout im not sure they can
Mr. WEO Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 If there is a lockout im not sure they can The OP said if a new CBA is signed before camp. If there is no season, don't count on many guys staying in any better shape than they typically show up to camp in. No matter what, if there is going to be football, there will be testing.
Rockinon Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 The owners will absolutely still test. They would be crazy not to. I think the OP believes the owners will no longer have the authority to do so with no CBA in place.
silvermike Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 That's correct - there will be no drug testing of any kind during the lockout. I don't know enough about PEDs to say whether or not you can use them for a few months, and keep the benefits but lose the evidence afterwards, but if it's possible, it's going to happen. And of course, there will be an awful lot of marijuana smoked the day the lockout is announced.
Doc Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 I've been listening to Sirius a lot recently and have been understanding that part of the biggest hold up is that the owners are having just as hard of time agreeing on how to spend the money as they are agreeing with the players. I have no doubt this is true, we already know Jones and Snyders viewpoint, and it was mentioned that Al Davis is against both of their ideas on how to share revenue. The thoughts are coming out that the more profitable teams want more of the money from the league. The players on Sirius who have been interviewed, whether they are Union Reps or just members have been saying to their understanding the NFL has not offered any type of contract at this point. I have a hard time believing that the NFL is at all in a position to agree with themselves let alone with the Union. What happened last time is the lower revenue teams were together against the larger markets, until Al Davis flipped. Ol' Skeletor was worried about a new league forming. That is my understanding. If Jerry Jones wants 51% of his teams revenue and only 49% goes to the NFL that lowers the overall amount of the leagues money by quite a bit. The team is valued at 1.8 billion with an income over 420 million in 2009. The operating income was 143 mill. The owners are fighting over more money then the players, in one sense. Jones has a new stadium to worry about paying for and will face trouble paying off loans if he cannot have games on Sunday, so in the same hand, he also wants to settle this. The Bills have little leverage. A fat contract from Tor. to play games in a Stadium we do not run, with a stadium that probably has the lowest amount of leveraged costs, and a team that is lower in market value then almost all of the other teams. The Bills (read: Ralph) and smaller market/lower revenue teams have more leverage than you think. Ralph being right about the 2006 CBA carries a lot of weight. And there are 17 lower revenue teams, who received incremental (supplemental) revenue sharing, who won't approve a plan that hurts them. And Jones had no debt (like Ralph) related to the Cowboys before building his mausoleum. He got greedy and is paying the price.
UConn James Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 I think he's saying players are gonna juice during the lockout itself, not if the new CBA has no PED testing included in it (which I think has a 0% chance of happening). If that's the case... a player "juices" and then the next week a CBA is signed. He's screwed. Add in the increased awareness of the longer-term effects of it, and you'd hope that the lure of PEDs has quelled significantly. Probably not, because like most Americans they've also got a care span only for the next 15 minutes... but you'd hope.
Doc Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 More like it will be a vacation from them having to take masking agents, since there won't be any "random" tests.
Mr. WEO Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 I think the OP believes the owners will no longer have the authority to do so with no CBA in place. Employers may drug test as a condition of employment. All teams will do it. PLayers will either test or not play. That's correct - there will be no drug testing of any kind during the lockout. I don't know enough about PEDs to say whether or not you can use them for a few months, and keep the benefits but lose the evidence afterwards, but if it's possible, it's going to happen. And of course, there will be an awful lot of marijuana smoked the day the lockout is announced. Shawn Merriman says you can't.
Recommended Posts