New CBA Details begin to leak.

[Billyg]

4 minutes ago, SAR I said:

The proposal has the league going from 4 preseason games to 3.  The 9th home game would be in lieu of the 2nd preseason game.  So we'd pay for the same 10 home games.  Every other year we'd have 2 preseason games, every other year we'd have 1 preseason and 1 extra regular season game.

Since regular season games are something like $25 more expensive than preseason games, you would see an increase around that amount every other year that 2nd preseason game is converted to a 9th regular season game.

SAR I

Or they would just do the variable pricing where the total cost per year is the same but they play with the allocation between preseason and regular season games. 

[SAR I]

1 minute ago, Billyg said:

Or they would just do the variable pricing where the total cost per year is the same but they play with the allocation between preseason and regular season games. 

Yes, that's what I'd expect the Jets to do as they have been extremely fair to season ticket holders since 2009.

SAR I

[flgreen]

58 minutes ago, SAR I said:

Hence the reason that continuity is so much more important than it was in the past.  Gase & Coaches all returning next year gives us an advantage over all the teams with rookie HC's and on par with those who have a staff onboard for a few years.

SAR I

Not only that, but do you know how hard it will be for an UDFA to win a job?  Only 16 shots to impress the coaches, and no hitting.  

This is going to affect the quality  of  play the first month of the season big time.  I'm willing to bet serious injury is going to go way up.  

Stupid idea.  Will make it almost impossible to take a lazy vets job, but I guess that's what the rule is about.

[Maxman]

1 hour ago, SAR I said:

But it takes the place of a preseason game,

So if we have the 17th game as a home game, we'd pay for 9 regular season and 1 preseason game, right?  Then the next year we'd pay for 8 and 2 just like the old days.  I think that's how it works. 

SAR I

Yes you are right, I forgot about that. Good point. They can just level it all out with the variable pricing too.

[Sperm Edwards]

13 hours ago, choon328 said:

The proposal is to move it to 55, not 60. And move there game day roster to 48 instead of 46. Most teams keep at least $5 million in cap space at the start of the year in case of injuries.  Increasing the roster by 2 would help alleviate the need to go out and sign a free agent during the season bc of the additional roster options.  Plus the practice squad is proposed to go to 12 from 10. Another part of the new CBA is that teams would be able to bring up a player from the practice squad and send him back down a couple of times without subjecting him to waivers and risk losing him.  Again, this would alleviate the need to go out and sign a street free agent bc of an injury. Everything you said above about the additional money needed is a moodt point bc of the proposed roster and practice squad changes. 

The comment I was directly responding to was a reply to [technically a reply to a reply to] a roster expansion to 60, not 55. Regardless, I don't know of any proposal to expand the roster but keep only the top 51 as counting against the cap. As likely as not, it seems the top 53 would then count (or top 55-58 if expanded to 60, which is again what I was replying to).

The extra players kept in case of injuries are often short term solutions for depth alone, not to starters - often trades occur when the starter gets injured, rather than always promoting a backup or dipping into a PS-level player (see Jets with Enunwa/Demaryius). But more than that, the reason teams seek players off their roster is precisely because there are players available, which will be thinner if the rosters are expanded for 32 teams. It makes less opportunity for these players actually worthy of a slot if they're just getting stashed as 4th to 6th stringers, depending on the position. At least if they were available, and had the ability, then a team who needs them to be 1st-3rd stringers would give them a better opportunity. 

Things like this can backfire for players as well. Look at someone like TJ Yates, who started when we faced him in Nov 2015. First off, if there's a roster expansion, almost assuredly it will mean a lot of teams use the extra slots for a 3rd string QB - or for others, even a 4th string QB (only the Maccagnan Jets would carry 4 on a 53-man roster) - when some don't bother right now; it'd be like a fantasy team hoarding RBs on an 17-man roster when they can't if it's only 15. If Yates was stashed and buried as someone else's 3rd (never mind 4th) stringer because of an extra roster spot, he likely would never seen the field, as Houston needed him to start after the trade deadline, with their postseason slot on the line. I don't think it's this all-good-for-all-cases scenario as thought up. Opportunities that open up on the #55+ man's own team will be offset by opportunities that would have opened up (but didn't) for others. Unintended consequences and all that.

[14 in Green]

On 2/21/2020 at 10:14 AM, johnnysd said:

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.

LMAO

Can I go with "the opposite of whatever this guy says for $500, Alex?"

 

btw, Normally, I'd never down vote someone for stating their opinion, but you love doing it, so I figured you would enjoy having it done to you...  

[JohnnyLV]

4 hours ago, 14 in Green said:

LMAO

Can I go with "the opposite of whatever this guy says for $500, Alex?"

 

btw, Normally, I'd never down vote someone for stating their opinion, but you love doing it, so I figured you would enjoy having it done to you...  

It's fine. I have no perspective on where your ideas come from. You seem to be 100% against ownership and somehow seem to think that the owners are abusing the players with this contract when in reality it is a great improvement for all but maybe 100 of the 2000 or so players. Not sure what you think the CBA should look like. You also seem to have no idea what a salary is and NFL players are salaried workers, not hourly.

[choon328]

The Jets need the CBA signed asap so they can use a June 1st designation on Trumaine Johnson and save an additional $6 million.  Without it being signed there is no June 1st option.