Looks like a player hold out is coming

The only way that the NFL can expand the number of games is if they limit the number of games each individual player plays. So even though you have a 18 game schedule, each player can only play 16 reg season games. So that would mean that for 2 of the games, your main QB is not playing in the game. It would reward teams with greater depth, although all that goes away once you reach the playoffs. I don't know how many players would need to be on a team to facilitate replacements for 2 games, but my best guess would be around 70.

The Sherman's and Watt's hold little power. The average NFL career is 3 years that's why the owners always win. Their deal is more beneficial to the lower class of the NFL and while the owners may not win this round in the end the players will fold. The elite guys just can't force a lockout so the owners will get their way. They'll likely get 18 nexy year if the players don't take 17.

Do other leagues change this much in such a short span of time? Rule changes every year and now changes to the very structure of the season, wtf?I know why owners want it, but as a sports fan it sucks.

Originally posted by LifelongNiner:

Do other leagues change this much in such a short span of time? Rule changes every year and now changes to the very structure of the season, wtf?I know why owners want it, but as a sports fan it sucks.

Speaking from Europe, no. I don't know why NFL and MLB seem intent on making so many changes so often. I don't think it is a good idea.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by mayo49:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
16 games and still pay the players.

18 games and still pay the players.

No.

There will just be more injuries. The NFL takes an incredible toll on your body. 16 games is enough. Leave it alone. They keep trying to change the game. The game was just fine the way it was.

Compared to the past the game has gotten softer, easier. I support more games but they should be getting more than 53 players on a roster if they intend to increase the work load.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by mayo49:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
16 games and still pay the players.

18 games and still pay the players.

No.

There will just be more injuries. The NFL takes an incredible toll on your body. 16 games is enough. Leave it alone. They keep trying to change the game. The game was just fine the way it was.

It's still going to be the 20 game model - 18 regular season games and 2 preseason games. I don't see why it's so hard to imagine it being possible.

They should also raise the limit to how many people can dress on game day to me if the roster is 53 why not allow all to be available on game day

I think they want the extra game so each team will play in another country like England. Those games typically suck, but the NFL keeps forcing them. Seems to me the extra player revenue will mainly go to the top players not the lower level players. A team like the Rams don't have many of their starters play in the preseason so going from 4 to 2 only hurts players trying to make the team. I like 16 games, but I guess some people liked it when it was a 14 game season. The NFL is eventually going to have a season, month wise, as long as MLB.

Originally posted by jcs:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by mayo49:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
16 games and still pay the players.

+ Show all quotes
18 games and still pay the players.

No.

There will just be more injuries. The NFL takes an incredible toll on your body. 16 games is enough. Leave it alone. They keep trying to change the game. The game was just fine the way it was.

Compared to the past the game has gotten softer, easier. I support more games but they should be getting more than 53 players on a roster if they intend to increase the work load.

I don't like it at all. I don't want it at all. But if they did it they need to expand the roster to 65 - 70 from the 53 man roster. But owners won't like this either. Because they will have to pay more salaries. So their extra money will be gone. Just leave it alone. Players also don't want to just be an injury specimen on some experiment for more games. Just because they expand the roster doesn't mean those guys want to get hurt because there are more bodies on the roster. Due to playing extra games and the toll it takes on your body. It's just a bad idea.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2878163-nfls-potential-cba-has-leagues-stars-at-war-with-their-teammates?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_medium=referral

"If the new CBA gets ratified, it would provide labor peace in the NFL for the next 10 years. But the deal is not coming about peacefully, especially within the player pool itself.

In interviews with both younger players and veterans, a contentious picture is emerging. It's highly likely that a majority of players will vote in favor of the new CBA because they see it as a positive, that labor peace and the assurance that paychecks won't be interrupted is more important than something that may or may not happen to their physical health in the coming years. But those players face a headwind generated by a bevy of stars, including some of the biggest in the game, who think this deal is horrid, and just as importantly, have the financial security to think long-term."

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by jcs:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by mayo49:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
16 games and still pay the players.

18 games and still pay the players.

+ Show all quotes
No.

There will just be more injuries. The NFL takes an incredible toll on your body. 16 games is enough. Leave it alone. They keep trying to change the game. The game was just fine the way it was.

Compared to the past the game has gotten softer, easier. I support more games but they should be getting more than 53 players on a roster if they intend to increase the work load.

I don't like it at all. I don't want it at all. But if they did it they need to expand the roster to 65 - 70 from the 53 man roster. But owners won't like this either. Because they will have to pay more salaries. So their extra money will be gone. Just leave it alone. Players also don't want to just be an injury specimen on some experiment for more games. Just because they expand the roster doesn't mean those guys want to get hurt because there are more bodies on the roster. Due to playing extra games and the toll it takes on your body. It's just a bad idea.

They are talking about shortening the preseason. I think it's a fair tradeoff.

It would make no sense for the players to hold out. Owners still get paid tv contracts during a lockout

Originally posted by BriRichardson:
It would make no sense for the players to hold out. Owners still get paid tv contracts during a lockout

True but they have to split that money. The owners wouldn't receive any game day revenue such as parking and concessions. Owners have the deeper pockets so they always have the leverage

When is the goddamn vote?

Voting is under way as of Thursday 9 am EST. and will go until next Thursday 12th at 12:59 pm EST.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/03/05/cba-voting-begins/