Jump to content
Mogglez

New CBA Details begin to leak.

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Meh. That usually isn’t the case. When a team wins a division at 7-9 or 8-8, typically that’s just been a trash division.

Link? 

I don't know that I agree or disagree with the word "typically" fwiw, but you are advocating change so burden of proof and all. I think division winner should get special treatment and you live with cases like above rather than penalize a team for being in a strong division or being paired with a team that had a cupcake schedule

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not fan of moving of 16 but I guess anyone who follows this stuff knew the owners win out eventually....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, munchmemory said:

My son laughs at me when I go on my inevitable diatribe about no one "boxing out" any more.  And just once, I'd love to see any one of the modern guys come down the lane against players like Oak, Mase or Laimbeer.  Oh wait, they're all out taking threes anyway.

the game has morphed into a 3 point chuck fest.  Granted, today's players have uncanny shooting accuracy compared to decades past, but there is no defense, no under-the-boards battles.  

NBA royally sucks.  I miss it.  The brand of hoops I like seems to be forever gone.  Very sad.

  • Upvote 1
  • Confused 1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Philc1 said:

Eliminating the 4th bs preseason game obviously doesn’t make up for the 17th game or additional playoff games

 

 

nor that it matters to me as a jets fan we aren’t making the playoffs anytime soon

I notice that only the players with massive contracts are objecting to the 17th game.

Lesser played players want that extra money.  I wish guys like Watt and Sherman would STFU.  Sherman even got our dumb "Prez" to stop promoting the 17 games.  Adams was in favor of it and is now silent, yielding to Sherman and the other highly paid players that are NOT speaking for the minority.  

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting comments yesterday on Moving the Chains on NFL Sirius regarding the 17 game schedule + extra playoff teams.  

For people who are squeamish about more 8-8 or even 7-9 teams making the playoffs:

In the history current 12-team playoff format, there have been more 10-6 teams to NOT make the playoffs than there have been 8-8 or worse that make the playoffs.  (Last season, the Rams 9-7 and Steelers 8-8 would have been the next 2 teams.)  

The argument is that it's a worse case to not let  deprived 10-6 teams into the playoffs than it is to let an 8-8 or worse team in occasionally.   I can buy into this.  

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dcat said:

the game has morphed into a 3 point chuck fest.  Granted, today's players have uncanny shooting accuracy compared to decades past, but there is no defense, no under-the-boards battles.  

NBA royally sucks.  I miss it.  The brand of hoops I like seems to be forever gone.  Very sad.

So true.  Remember when we thought World B. Free was a chucker?   Guy would be looked at like a reluctant shooter today.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, CTM said:

Link? 

I don't know that I agree or disagree with the word "typically" fwiw, but you are advocating change so burden of proof and all. I think division winner should get special treatment and you live with cases like above rather than penalize a team for being in a strong division or being paired with a team that had a cupcake schedule

This is my take on reseeding, too; don't do it. Teams within a division all play basically the same schedule, you come out on top there, you get a home playoff game. Take that away, and winning the division isn't as important anymore. Couple that with the expanded regular and post-seasons, and you have a very diluted product.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Link?  I don't know that I agree or disagree with the word "typically" fwiw, but you are advocating change so burden of proof and all. I think division winner should get special treatment and you live with cases like above rather than penalize a team for being in a strong division or being paired with a team that had a cupcake schedule  

 

  Yeah I don’t have numbers on that, and would have to look back. I’m just going off recent memory. Last years NFC East was trash. The 7-9 Seahawks pre-Russell Wilson that won their division is another example. And in 2008 I believe the 11-5 Pats missed the playoffs and an 8-8 or so team (Chargers?) won their division.

 

Pretty much every single time a sub 9-7 team wins a division there’s been a legit complaint coming from a 10-6 or so team that missed the postseason. Or a team with a much better record in the playoffs having to hit the road to face them.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is my take on reseeding, too; don't do it. Teams within a division all play basically the same schedule, you come out on top there, you get a home playoff game. Take that away, and winning the division isn't as important anymore. Couple that with the expanded regular and post-seasons, and you have a very diluted product.  


It would still be important to win your division, because you still get in the playoffs in my “plan”. I don’t want to take that part away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 


It would still be important to win your division, because you still get in the playoffs in my “plan”. I don’t want to take that part away.

 

Yeah, but you're taking the luster off it. Sometimes an 8-8 team wins a division, and sometimes a 10-6 team doesn't get in. Oh well, next time do better, 10-6 team. Next year, the AFCe has a very tough schedule. The winner of the Brady-less division could be 9-7. They'll still deserve their home playoff game over the team that finished third in their division's cakewalk schedule at 10-6, IMHO. It works both ways. Leave it alone. This isn't something that needs to be fixed. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This in itself I believe is a win all the way around. If it gets approved. They may have to tweak the roster cut downs but let’s face it the preseason is absolutely horrible. The only game even remotely worth going to is usually game three and the ticket price is the same as a regular game. I didn’t know how they will figure out the home/away site with uneven games but I guess we will find out. If they do decide they’re will be 1 neutral site game that would work also I guess.  Maybe a game in San Antonio for the Texans, st.louis for the rams  things like that 

we will know in a month 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what is going to happen. A group of veterans with one foot out the NFL door, spurned on by lawyers like Kessler will come out against a early CBA, sour the NFLPA on approving a deal and the whole process will revert to the brinkmanship and  harsh rhetoric we always see in these negotiations because the NFLPA veterans thinks they will get "more" and we will see a lockout in 2021 that will get protracted and bitter. Odds on a CBA extension being approved now with the NFLPA veteran leadership, D Smith and the rabid lawyers behind them is quite frankly zero.

  • Upvote 1
  • Thumb Down 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, UnknownJetFan said:

Disagree with playoff format. There should be 3 WC teams. Heck Jets, Niners, etc. in the past of had 10-6 records and were very solid teams that could have got on a role in the playoffs, but were left out due to this rediculous 2 WC format.

They arent there to have a chance to win.  Adding a playoff team is to just fill air time between commercials with a King Kong Bundy vs. Brooklyn Brawler squash match.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2020 at 7:48 PM, Joe Jets fan said:

What a huge advantage for the #1 seed.  
they are going to move the Super Bowl to the sun before Presidents’ Day.  

Been the way this has been heading for a very long time. Add 2 weeks including a 2nd bye brings you to the Super Bowl the night before Presidents Day. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bumping this to keep it in one thread.

Sounds like this is gonna pass.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mogglez said:

Bumping this to keep it in one thread.

Sounds like this is gonna pass.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2020 at 6:43 PM, New York Mick said:

If it’s not broke don’t fix it. 

It’s broke. We need 16 teams a conference so we can make it to the playoffs every year!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not crazy about the 17 game schedule, but glad for NFL labor peace for the next 10 years.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2020 at 1:37 PM, KRL said:

Owners will never expand the active rosters, they won't want to pay more $$$ in salaries

I’m all for the players getting everything they can, but that isn’t where the blame lies at all. If you want to point fingers, this one is on the players union and not the owners. 

If a team’s salary cap is $200MM, calculated by the agreed-upon percentage of shared revenue, it’d be the same $200MM whether there’s 53 or 60 players on the roster. Any given team’s one year cap manipulation and minor exceptions like the veteran minimum salary cap relief, they teams can’t exceed that no matter how many rostered (or cut/IR’d) players they pay. 

Expanding the roster by 7 in advance will necessarily decrease the salaries of others within the top 53 (and it won’t affect the very lowest paid players, since they already make the league minimum and by rule can’t make any less than they already do).

It could even arguably cost the owners LESS to expand the rosters to 60, since they wouldn’t have to go over the 53 for players they’ve PUP’d or IR’d eligible for return; they could just keep those players as roster spots #59-60 instead, and as an added bonus the player can return earlier if he’s healed up. Truth is there are only so many worthy players to go around, so there’s an argument to be made to keep the player off IR/PUP with an expanded roster. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2020 at 8:46 AM, slats said:

Yeah, but you're taking the luster off it. Sometimes an 8-8 team wins a division, and sometimes a 10-6 team doesn't get in. Oh well, next time do better, 10-6 team. Next year, the AFCe has a very tough schedule. The winner of the Brady-less division could be 9-7. They'll still deserve their home playoff game over the team that finished third in their division's cakewalk schedule at 10-6, IMHO. It works both ways. Leave it alone. This isn't something that needs to be fixed. 

This is as good a reason as any: all divisions don’t have the same schedule, both within the division and in the divisions they play against. Someone in another division may have won more games, but only as a paper tiger because they had 2 divisional games against legit competition, plus maybe two more against weak inter-division matchups, and the rest were creampuffs, leading to a meh team winning 10+ games.

Case in point, I just described the 2015 Jets. Even the shoulda-been tougher games weren’t in reality, because we got lucky with multiple opponents having key injuries in our matchup (Dallas, Washington, and even though we lost against Houston they played a freaking street FA Yates at QB). Whether there’s 16 or 17 or 18 games in a season, that isn’t nearly enough games to smooth out those exceptions so they get lost in the mix the same way they do in NBA or MLB. So 2015 Houston not only had a higher seed than others with just a 9-7 record, but even with losing to them the Jets still finished with more wins and didn’t make the playoffs at all.

Then there’s also the occasional instance of a playoff bubble team matching up against someone in week 17 who’s resting starters because either their season’s over (e.g. us vs Buffalo 2016) or they were already locked into their playoff seed (e.g. us vs Buffalo 2019, or everyone vs late-season Indy in the peak Manning years); essentially playing late games against team(s) intentionally not putting their best players on the field. 

As you said, the answer to those teams is next time do better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lith said:

 

No offense, how could a team rep abstain from voting on this? Something more important on his mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I’m all for the players getting everything they can, but that isn’t where the blame lies at all. If you want to point fingers, this one is on the players union and not the owners. 

If a team’s salary cap is $200MM, calculated by the agreed-upon percentage of shared revenue, it’d be the same $200MM whether there’s 53 or 60 players on the roster. Any given team’s one year cap manipulation and minor exceptions like the veteran minimum salary cap relief, they teams can’t exceed that no matter how many rostered (or cut/IR’d) players they pay. 

Expanding the roster by 7 in advance will necessarily decrease the salaries of others within the top 53 (and it won’t affect the very lowest paid players, since they already make the league minimum and by rule can’t make any less than they already do).

It could even arguably cost the owners LESS to expand the rosters to 60, since they wouldn’t have to go over the 53 for players they’ve PUP’d or IR’d eligible for return; they could just keep those players as roster spots #59-60 instead, and as an added bonus the player can return earlier if he’s healed up. Truth is there are only so many worthy players to go around, so there’s an argument to be made to keep the player off IR/PUP with an expanded roster. 

For cap purposes, only the top 51 players count against the cap. So raising the active roster limit wouldn't affect players at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The money these players are making they should play more games. I'm not really for or against it but most of these players make enough in one season than most  fans make in an entire lifetime and are set for the rest of their lives. The rules the players union have in place limiting practice time has really effected the game the first 3 to 4 games the teams are still shaking the rust off 1 more game wont kill them. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, the league isn't trying to start the 17 game schedule in 2020 are they?

When it does happen, how do they decide who gets an extra home game? It the Jets play 8 at home and 9 on the road but the Patriots have 9 home games that is an advantage. 

How will the league handle that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maxman said:

Wait, the league isn't trying to start the 17 game schedule in 2020 are they?

When it does happen, how do they decide who gets an extra home game? It the Jets play 8 at home and 9 on the road but the Patriots have 9 home games that is an advantage. 

How will the league handle that?

 

Lots of International neutral site games, obviously. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fantasy Island said:

NBA is the same way

16/32 make the playoffs in the NBA.  But unlike the NFL, each round is a 7-game series.  So the playoffs last approximately forever.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Maxman said:

Wait, the league isn't trying to start the 17 game schedule in 2020 are they?

When it does happen, how do they decide who gets an extra home game? It the Jets play 8 at home and 9 on the road but the Patriots have 9 home games that is an advantage. 

How will the league handle that?

I believe the idea is that the 17th game is an international game. I have not seen anything on how it is determined which team you play in that 17th game. Hopefully it is not purely discretionary for TV because that creates additional imbalance.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the high salary veterans are coming out to sour the rank and file on this deal. Reality is that if those veterans get what they want the only benefit will be themselves. Hopefully it passes

  • Upvote 1
  • Thumb Down 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Maxman said:

Wait, the league isn't trying to start the 17 game schedule in 2020 are they?

When it does happen, how do they decide who gets an extra home game? It the Jets play 8 at home and 9 on the road but the Patriots have 9 home games that is an advantage. 

How will the league handle that?

At the minimum the league should insure that all teams in the same the division play the same amount of home games each season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, johnnysd said:

I believe the idea is that the 17th game is an international game. I have not seen anything on how it is determined which team you play in that 17th game. Hopefully it is not purely discretionary for TV because that creates additional imbalance.

I think it's got to be alternating home/away game against a team in the NFC that is in a division the Jets are not playing that year that finished in the same position as we did.

So since we play the NFC West this year, the AFC East would play its "strength of record" games against the NFC South or something like that.  It's no different than how we drew the 3rd place team in the AFC North and AFC South for this upcoming season.  Just do it again but in the NFC.

SAR I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SAR I said:

I think it's got to be alternating home/away game against a team in the NFC that is in a division the Jets are not playing that year that finished in the same position as we did.

So since we play the NFC West this year, the AFC East would play its "strength of record" games against the NFC South or something like that.  It's no different than how we drew the 3rd place team in the AFC North and AFC South for this upcoming season.  Just do it again but in the NFC.

SAR I

So teams in the same division will have a different amount of home games? That isn't right.

Which kind of proves that 17 games is just a migration path to 18 games.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Maxman said:

Wait, the league isn't trying to start the 17 game schedule in 2020 are they?

When it does happen, how do they decide who gets an extra home game? It the Jets play 8 at home and 9 on the road but the Patriots have 9 home games that is an advantage. 

How will the league handle that?

This has been answered. The 17th game will be against the other conference and the 'home' game will alternate years. So 1 year all AFC teams will be the 'home' team and the next year all 'NFC' teams will be the home team.

 

So no one in the conference will get an extra home game over any other team in their conference. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




Content Partnership

Yes Network

Site Sponsor

MILE-Social - NJ Social Media & SEO company
×
×
  • Create New...