NFL Thread

[Northern Raider]

If the so called expert says its the worst he has seen in 15yrs.
Piggy says its a **** cake.
Id argue that 'lopsidedness' is enough to be considered trash.
So, knowing very little about it, thats enough for me to stick with my original comment.

All good. Next time I'll just ask Piggles what your opinion is.

[Botman]

If you could all just do that in the future it will save me a lot of typing.

[Botman]

Bottom line on the argument is that players need more financial compensation for the additional regular season game for everybody (plus 1 playoff for 2 lucky teams). Playing with the maths on the basic numbers, there is a 6.25% increase in game time as you pointed out. Players share of revenue is increasing from 47% to 48.5%. If the increased number of games is reflected by and equal increase in revenue (ticket sales, TV rights etc) then the players share is acutally increasing by 9.6% (i.e. 48.5% of 1.0625 x current revenue vs 47% of current revenue).

I'm not going to get into any debate about "gambling definitions" and possible loopholes. I'd need to see the ultra fine print (and possibly specialist legal advice) before before getting into that.

What the maths there is missing it it assumes the balance of power is roughly the equal. That the current deal is fair, and it's not. As said the NBA players get a 50/50 revenue split, player salaries in the MLB go between 54-58% of total revenue
This deal locks the NFL players into less than a 50% split for now just now, but for the next 10 years... they're operating from a inbalance.
It also assumes if there is no increase in games that revenue would stagnat. Which it wouldnt. The TV rights, ticket sales etc will increase with or without additional games. The NFL is bulletproof as far as ratings go

Regarding your comments on the player share, it's estimated the increase will see roughly 5b extra go to players over the course of the deal, that's all cap related, so each year the cap will continue to rise and theoretically the players get that cash... here's the problem, given the minimum cash spend has only seen a 1% increase, there is actually nothing forcing the NFL owners to actually spend that money! Teams can continue to "roll" over 10's of millions of dollars each year so not all that revenue is going to hit players pockets and those that it does.

35-40 mil QB contracts are going to become the norm, right now the norm has been 25-30mil with the last few deals going up towards that 40m number, and that over 32 teams, and 10 years, will account for well over half that additional revenue... add in minor increases in minimum wage and the other edges, and it's basically not going to change the game for the mid teir which is most of the league.

Also this is a code that mashes your brains into goo, the NBA and MLB dont have the physical toll this game has, and they're at a much lower rate than those guys.

this deal was a chance to get themselves on level pegging because they had leverage. Finally they had the leverage.

They know the NFL desperately needs an expanded schedule and they needed to parlay that into a more equitable deal. All the leverage was in their favour and for now it appears they've pissed it away for some lighter practise schedules, virtually eliminating weed as a punishable offence and getting Goodell out of his judge/jury/executionier role... all of which are super easy concessions for the NFL to make and not economical ones, and ones the players would have gotten if you or i were negotiating the deal.

Im super into this stuff, i find the business and economics of the NFL to be one of the most fascinating things about sports. But i just cant see how the NFLPA can approve this deal. It's not close to good enough for what they're giving back.

[Botman]

All that being said
A new CBA would suit my personal **** Dallas agenda

A new CBA being signed off, would be a brutal blow for Dem Boys

[Northern Raider]

Don't the NBA and MLB teams play a thousand games a season? If we're talking comparisons then that needs to be taken into account.

[Botman]

Don't the NBA and MLB teams play a thousand games a season? If we're talking comparisons then that needs to be taken into account.

They do but the games are a red herring.Firsty those games dont mashing your brain into CTE hell.
There is reason the NFL players only play 16 and soon to be 17 game seasons, it's because its a violent sport that does insane damage to the body

Also, from an economical stand point, it's not really about the games. THe NFL arent worried about the fact the NBA play 82 game regular season or MLB roll out some obcene 162 game schedule.. those regular season games are virtually worthless, the Pro Bowl, which is an out and out JOKE outrates most NBA and MLB post season games. The PRO BOWL.

In terms of the economics of the sports, it really doesnt need to be taken into account. The NBA and MLB are getting a greater level of revenue sharing because they faught to get it in negotiations and were not afraid to risk work stoppages to get it. Not because they play more games. The reality is as tough as things might be for players during a work stoppage, the owners are losing significantly more
MLB and NBA PA's have figured out they have the leverage. They know the owners need them more than they need the owners, and have got fairer terms because of it. The NFLPA need to do the same. The iron is hot right now, the NFL has exhausted it's revenue options now, the only way to increase revenue beyond the CPI is to expand the schedule.

Andrew Brandt, who does a sports management course at a college over in the States and was a player agent and long time Packers Front Officer executive summed it up - the NFLPA should have red flags flying all over the place given how eager the NFL and owners are to do this deal and how they've employed the "insiders" to talk this deal up. These are ruthless owners who run these franchises and the league as a business, and they want this deal desperately.

As a player that's all you need to know

[Northern Raider]

Yeah so the NBA and MLB can't really be compared to the NFL.

[Botman]

Well they can. Because we're not talking about games. We're talking about revenue sharing

That's the great equealiser'. It doesnt matter if you play 10000 games or 1, if you're getting a significantly less proportion of total revenue, compared to your peers, then that is what it is.

[Matt]

If the so called expert says its the worst he has seen in 15yrs.
Piggy says its a **** cake.
Id argue that 'lopsidedness' is enough to be considered trash.
So, knowing very little about it, thats enough for me to stick with my original comment.

All good. Next time I'll just ask Piggles what your opinion is.

TBH, I'm normally against him, so this is new

[Matt]

All that being said
A new CBA would suit my personal **** Dallas agenda

A new CBA being signed off, would be a brutal blow for Dem Boys

Im assuming that's Dak at 40mill

[Matt]

Well they can. Because we're not talking about games. We're talking about revenue sharing

That's the great equealiser'. It doesnt matter if you play 10000 games or 1, if you're getting a significantly less proportion of total revenue, compared to your peers, then that is what it is.

Ok... if the NFL said 50%, so a 3% rise rather than 1.5%, is that 'a game changer' in regards to the deal? Wouldn't that just change the bottom by a little more and the top by a lot?

[Northern Raider]

Well they can. Because we're not talking about games. We're talking about revenue sharing

That's the great equealiser'. It doesnt matter if you play 10000 games or 1, if you're getting a significantly less proportion of total revenue, compared to your peers, then that is what it is.

Ok... if the NFL said 50%, so a 3% rise rather than 1.5%, is that 'a game changer' in regards to the deal? Wouldn't that just change the bottom by a little more and the top by a lot?

That statement by the NFLPA says they want increases in the minimum and practice squad salaries. Unless the majority of the pay increase is swallowed up by these you will always see the top end get the largest share. That's just the way of professional sports.

[Botman]

Well they can. Because we're not talking about games. We're talking about revenue sharing

That's the great equealiser'. It doesnt matter if you play 10000 games or 1, if you're getting a significantly less proportion of total revenue, compared to your peers, then that is what it is.

Ok... if the NFL said 50%, so a 3% rise rather than 1.5%, is that 'a game changer' in regards to the deal? Wouldn't that just change the bottom by a little more and the top by a lot?

For me, if im a player, 50% certain is a needle mover because it's parity, but id want a little more info about how that extra revenue would be used

At the moment my biggest thing is, you have 48% or 50% or even 60%, but thats cap space, right?

Right now the owners arent obligated to use all their cap space, the new proposal has 90% spend over 3-3-4 years tranches... id be trying to look at that and negotiating hard to get that spend up or the tranche years down so it forces the owners to spend more of the cap consistently, which means everyone will get their piece.

So i guess what im saying is the money side of things really needs to be looked at from two points.
1. What is your share of AR?
2. What have you got in place to actually enforce to owners to pass on as much of that as you can.

[Botman]

FWIW it looks as if some very vocal and important people on the players side are pushing hard against this. The players are going to meet with owners again in the coming days and i expect some more concessions will be made, but i think the vocal minority like JJ Watt and Richard Sherman might lose out to the silent majority who probably arent as invested in this as they should be and just want to be able to keepin playing football and get their money

It's a tough thing to ask young players and roster bubble guys to sacrifice their time and money for someone elses future.

[Matt]

Well they can. Because we're not talking about games. We're talking about revenue sharing

That's the great equealiser'. It doesnt matter if you play 10000 games or 1, if you're getting a significantly less proportion of total revenue, compared to your peers, then that is what it is.

Ok... if the NFL said 50%, so a 3% rise rather than 1.5%, is that 'a game changer' in regards to the deal? Wouldn't that just change the bottom by a little more and the top by a lot?

That statement by the NFLPA says they want increases in the minimum and practice squad salaries. Unless the majority of the pay increase is swallowed up by these you will always see the top end get the largest share. That's just the way of professional sports.

I guess what Im saying poorly is, that original push to get the min wage up stands, then if its was 50%, you still have more money to pass on the the top end. This is because you are getting the min wage increase in 1.5%, so if thats doubled, then that extra 1.5% still goes to the top doesnt it?

[Northern Raider]

Well they can. Because we're not talking about games. We're talking about revenue sharing

That's the great equealiser'. It doesnt matter if you play 10000 games or 1, if you're getting a significantly less proportion of total revenue, compared to your peers, then that is what it is.

Ok... if the NFL said 50%, so a 3% rise rather than 1.5%, is that 'a game changer' in regards to the deal? Wouldn't that just change the bottom by a little more and the top by a lot?

That statement by the NFLPA says they want increases in the minimum and practice squad salaries. Unless the majority of the pay increase is swallowed up by these you will always see the top end get the largest share. That's just the way of professional sports.

I guess what Im saying poorly is, that original push to get the min wage up stands, then if its was 50%, you still have more money to pass on the the top end. This is because you are getting the min wage increase in 1.5%, so if thats doubled, then that extra 1.5% still goes to the top doesnt it?

Not sure what you're saying. Current rookie minimum is $480k and the new proposal has increases of $100k in 2020, $50k in 2021 and $45k each year after that. NFL minimum salary and practice squad increases are similar. Though I believe the latter are paid weekly. Thats roughly 20% increase initially then 10% after that.

The rest of the extra money will be distributed among players higher up the depth chart on a variety of contract values. Teams still need to balance their roster to remain competive. If the Cowboys decide to throw it all at Dak then good luck to them. The main beneficiaries will be the division rivals.

[Northern Raider]

The other big news in the NFL is propsective draftees are now congregating in Indianaplis for the Combine. Let the over-analysis begin!

[Matt]

The other big news in the NFL is propsective draftees are now congregating in Indianaplis for the Combine. Let the over-analysis begin!

Yaaay

[Matt]

Well they can. Because we're not talking about games. We're talking about revenue sharing

That's the great equealiser'. It doesnt matter if you play 10000 games or 1, if you're getting a significantly less proportion of total revenue, compared to your peers, then that is what it is.

Ok... if the NFL said 50%, so a 3% rise rather than 1.5%, is that 'a game changer' in regards to the deal? Wouldn't that just change the bottom by a little more and the top by a lot?

That statement by the NFLPA says they want increases in the minimum and practice squad salaries. Unless the majority of the pay increase is swallowed up by these you will always see the top end get the largest share. That's just the way of professional sports.

I guess what Im saying poorly is, that original push to get the min wage up stands, then if its was 50%, you still have more money to pass on the the top end. This is because you are getting the min wage increase in 1.5%, so if thats doubled, then that extra 1.5% still goes to the top doesnt it?

Not sure what you're saying. Current rookie minimum is $480k and the new proposal has increases of $100k in 2020, $50k in 2021 and $45k each year after that. NFL minimum salary and practice squad increases are similar. Though I believe the latter are paid weekly. Thats roughly 20% increase initially then 10% after that.

The rest of the extra money will be distributed among players higher up the depth chart on a variety of contract values. Teams still need to balance their roster to remain competive. If the Cowboys decide to throw it all at Dak then good luck to them. The main beneficiaries will be the division rivals.

The min wage is getting an increase in the current deal. As per the above.
What im saying is, should they increase it to 50%, rather than 48.5%, you are getting 1.5% more market share.
So, as per Piggys explanation waaaaay at the top, most of this cap increase will go to the absolute studs at the franchises, and more importantly, most of that goes to QB1.
Does that make more sense?

[Northern Raider]

Ok... if the NFL said 50%, so a 3% rise rather than 1.5%, is that 'a game changer' in regards to the deal? Wouldn't that just change the bottom by a little more and the top by a lot?

That statement by the NFLPA says they want increases in the minimum and practice squad salaries. Unless the majority of the pay increase is swallowed up by these you will always see the top end get the largest share. That's just the way of professional sports.

I guess what Im saying poorly is, that original push to get the min wage up stands, then if its was 50%, you still have more money to pass on the the top end. This is because you are getting the min wage increase in 1.5%, so if thats doubled, then that extra 1.5% still goes to the top doesnt it?

Not sure what you're saying. Current rookie minimum is $480k and the new proposal has increases of $100k in 2020, $50k in 2021 and $45k each year after that. NFL minimum salary and practice squad increases are similar. Though I believe the latter are paid weekly. Thats roughly 20% increase initially then 10% after that.

The rest of the extra money will be distributed among players higher up the depth chart on a variety of contract values. Teams still need to balance their roster to remain competive. If the Cowboys decide to throw it all at Dak then good luck to them. The main beneficiaries will be the division rivals.

The min wage is getting an increase in the current deal. As per the above.
What im saying is, should they increase it to 50%, rather than 48.5%, you are getting 1.5% more market share.
So, as per Piggys explanation waaaaay at the top, most of this cap increase will go to the absolute studs at the franchises, and more importantly, most of that goes to QB1.
Does that make more sense?

Still not following. Are you saying they should ask for revenue share to be indexed at 50% and spend this extra on starting QBs. How does that benefit anybody other than that 1 person?

[Matt]

That statement by the NFLPA says they want increases in the minimum and practice squad salaries. Unless the majority of the pay increase is swallowed up by these you will always see the top end get the largest share. That's just the way of professional sports.

I guess what Im saying poorly is, that original push to get the min wage up stands, then if its was 50%, you still have more money to pass on the the top end. This is because you are getting the min wage increase in 1.5%, so if thats doubled, then that extra 1.5% still goes to the top doesnt it?

Not sure what you're saying. Current rookie minimum is $480k and the new proposal has increases of $100k in 2020, $50k in 2021 and $45k each year after that. NFL minimum salary and practice squad increases are similar. Though I believe the latter are paid weekly. Thats roughly 20% increase initially then 10% after that.

The rest of the extra money will be distributed among players higher up the depth chart on a variety of contract values. Teams still need to balance their roster to remain competive. If the Cowboys decide to throw it all at Dak then good luck to them. The main beneficiaries will be the division rivals.

The min wage is getting an increase in the current deal. As per the above.
What im saying is, should they increase it to 50%, rather than 48.5%, you are getting 1.5% more market share.
So, as per Piggys explanation waaaaay at the top, most of this cap increase will go to the absolute studs at the franchises, and more importantly, most of that goes to QB1.
Does that make more sense?

Still not following. Are you saying they should ask for revenue share to be indexed at 50% and spend this extra on starting QBs. How does that benefit anybody other than that 1 person?

No. Im suggesting, if the only thing that changes in the current deal, is that 48.5% goes to 50%, isnt the worry, as Piggy put it, that most of that extra cap ends up in QB1s pocket? Well, theoretically, coz again, Piggy covered that.

[Northern Raider]

The other big news in the NFL is propsective draftees are now congregating in Indianaplis for the Combine. Let the over-analysis begin!

Yaaay

Some middle of the road college LB will run a 4.4 and suddenly become a 1st round prospect.

[Northern Raider]

I guess what Im saying poorly is, that original push to get the min wage up stands, then if its was 50%, you still have more money to pass on the the top end. This is because you are getting the min wage increase in 1.5%, so if thats doubled, then that extra 1.5% still goes to the top doesnt it?

Not sure what you're saying. Current rookie minimum is $480k and the new proposal has increases of $100k in 2020, $50k in 2021 and $45k each year after that. NFL minimum salary and practice squad increases are similar. Though I believe the latter are paid weekly. Thats roughly 20% increase initially then 10% after that.

The rest of the extra money will be distributed among players higher up the depth chart on a variety of contract values. Teams still need to balance their roster to remain competive. If the Cowboys decide to throw it all at Dak then good luck to them. The main beneficiaries will be the division rivals.

The min wage is getting an increase in the current deal. As per the above.
What im saying is, should they increase it to 50%, rather than 48.5%, you are getting 1.5% more market share.
So, as per Piggys explanation waaaaay at the top, most of this cap increase will go to the absolute studs at the franchises, and more importantly, most of that goes to QB1.
Does that make more sense?

Still not following. Are you saying they should ask for revenue share to be indexed at 50% and spend this extra on starting QBs. How does that benefit anybody other than that 1 person?

No. Im suggesting, if the only thing that changes in the current deal, is that 48.5% goes to 50%, isnt the worry, as Piggy put it, that most of that extra cap ends up in QB1s pocket? Well, theoretically, coz again, Piggy covered that.

Pig, can you please tell me what Matt is saying. 25 words or less.

[Matt]

The other big news in the NFL is propsective draftees are now congregating in Indianaplis for the Combine. Let the over-analysis begin!

Yaaay

Some middle of the road college LB will run a 4.4 and suddenly become a 1st round prospect.

Happens every other yr

[Matt]

Not sure what you're saying. Current rookie minimum is $480k and the new proposal has increases of $100k in 2020, $50k in 2021 and $45k each year after that. NFL minimum salary and practice squad increases are similar. Though I believe the latter are paid weekly. Thats roughly 20% increase initially then 10% after that.

The rest of the extra money will be distributed among players higher up the depth chart on a variety of contract values. Teams still need to balance their roster to remain competive. If the Cowboys decide to throw it all at Dak then good luck to them. The main beneficiaries will be the division rivals.

The min wage is getting an increase in the current deal. As per the above.
What im saying is, should they increase it to 50%, rather than 48.5%, you are getting 1.5% more market share.
So, as per Piggys explanation waaaaay at the top, most of this cap increase will go to the absolute studs at the franchises, and more importantly, most of that goes to QB1.
Does that make more sense?

Still not following. Are you saying they should ask for revenue share to be indexed at 50% and spend this extra on starting QBs. How does that benefit anybody other than that 1 person?

No. Im suggesting, if the only thing that changes in the current deal, is that 48.5% goes to 50%, isnt the worry, as Piggy put it, that most of that extra cap ends up in QB1s pocket? Well, theoretically, coz again, Piggy covered that.

Pig, can you please tell me what Matt is saying. 25 words or less.

From Piggys post above:

"35-40 mil QB contracts are going to become the norm, right now the norm has been 25-30mil with the last few deals going up towards that 40m number, and that over 32 teams, and 10 years, will account for well over half that additional revenue... add in minor increases in minimum wage and the other edges, and it's basically not going to change the game for the mid teir which is most of the league."

With an extra 1.5% (48.5% to 50%), this is just even higher, and/ or another stud gets paid too.

[Northern Raider]

From Piggys post above:

"35-40 mil QB contracts are going to become the norm, right now the norm has been 25-30mil with the last few deals going up towards that 40m number, and that over 32 teams, and 10 years, will account for well over half that additional revenue... add in minor increases in minimum wage and the other edges, and it's basically not going to change the game for the mid teir which is most of the league."

With an extra 1.5% (48.5% to 50%), this is just even higher, and/ or another stud gets paid too.

OK but that's speculating how GMs will choose to spend the additional cap money available to them. The only way to prevent that is to introduce some form of maximum salary. Can't see the NFLPA agreeing to something like that.

[Northern Raider]

The other big news in the NFL is propsective draftees are now congregating in Indianaplis for the Combine. Let the over-analysis begin!

Yaaay

Some middle of the road college LB will run a 4.4 and suddenly become a 1st round prospect.

Happens every other yr

Even better when a shortass QB measures 1/4" taller than expected and catapults to no1 overall.

[Matt]

The other big news in the NFL is propsective draftees are now congregating in Indianaplis for the Combine. Let the over-analysis begin!

Yaaay

Some middle of the road college LB will run a 4.4 and suddenly become a 1st round prospect.

Happens every other yr

Even better when a shortass QB measures 1/4" taller than expected and catapults to no1 overall.

That Navy QB perhaps?!?

[Matt]

From Piggys post above:

"35-40 mil QB contracts are going to become the norm, right now the norm has been 25-30mil with the last few deals going up towards that 40m number, and that over 32 teams, and 10 years, will account for well over half that additional revenue... add in minor increases in minimum wage and the other edges, and it's basically not going to change the game for the mid teir which is most of the league."

With an extra 1.5% (48.5% to 50%), this is just even higher, and/ or another stud gets paid too.

OK but that's speculating how GMs will choose to spend the additional cap money available to them. The only way to prevent that is to introduce some form of maximum salary. Can't see the NFLPA agreeing to something like that.

Yes, its speculation, but very possible, and thats what looks like happening with this one.

[Botman]

The other big news in the NFL is propsective draftees are now congregating in Indianaplis for the Combine. Let the over-analysis begin!

Yaaay

Some middle of the road college LB will run a 4.4 and suddenly become a 1st round prospect.

Happens every other yr

Even better when a shortass QB measures 1/4" taller than expected and catapults to no1 overall.

Remember this nonsense goes the other way too!
Dk Metcalf was a monster in college, arrived to the combine, absolutely lit it the **** on fire, save for a very ordinary 3 cone time, then all of a sudden many (and maybe i was even one of them, i cant remember where i fell on the DK analysis lol) pretended he couldnt play... then he falls to the back of the 2nd in the draft and surprise surprise, he can **** play!

[Botman]

Pig, can you please tell me what Matt is saying. 25 words or less.

Not in 25 words or less.
I think he's saying that an increase in total revenue sharing isn't going to be something that finds its way to most players pockets unless it's combined with other factors such as min wage and PS wages etc... which ive spoken about here and i think would end up being very true. Players will read that they're getting an additional 1.5% of total revenue but if that's not supported with other things that spread that money out 99% of players wont sniff any of that extra money.

-----


Just on it though as critical as i am of the proposed deal for the players, from an owners perspective, it's exactly what they should do. As someone said on a pod today, when the owners say "this is the deal, take it or leave it and we'll see how work stoppages go... well it's not a bluff if you hold all the cards."
This is Billionaires vs Millionaires, and 70% of the player union probably cant afford a work stoppage.

So there is no incentive to do them any favours. The deal is going to ensure uninterupted work and decent pay increases and benefits for the majority, and as much as i can sit here and say they are getting nearly enough and they shouldnt take that deal, if im... i dont know, say JJ Arcega-Whiteside, im a 3rd round pick, coming off a pretty ordinary year, and im risking a work stoppage which will hinder my development, take time away from my contract tolling so i can hit FA and get that life changing money if im goods enough. And take money out of my pocket when all ive earned so far is 500k on a rookie deal... when i take an extra 90k now and focus on my career?

I guess its easy for me to say **** the league, this is a Bull deal. And it's easy JJ Watt and his 100m of salary made to date to say "we gotta take a stand for the future" where as Arcega-Whiteside isnt even sure he has a future yet, so why would he fight for that? NFL players have typically broken very quickly in work stoppages, unlike their counterparts and there is no reason to believe they wouldnt fold again. I think that's what makes these sort of things so interesting to me, is the push and pull of both parties

[Matt]

Pig, can you please tell me what Matt is saying. 25 words or less.

Not in 25 words or less.
I think he's saying that an increase in total revenue sharing isn't going to be something that finds its way to most players pockets unless it's combined with other factors such as min wage and PS wages etc... which ive spoken about here and i think would end up being very true. Players will read that they're getting an additional 1.5% of total revenue but if that's not supported with other things that spread that money out 99% of players wont sniff any of that extra money.

-----


Just on it though as critical as i am of the proposed deal for the players, from an owners perspective, it's exactly what they should do. As someone said on a pod today, when the owners say "this is the deal, take it or leave it and we'll see how work stoppages go... well it's not a bluff if you hold all the cards."
This is Billionaires vs Millionaires, and 70% of the player union probably cant afford a work stoppage.

So there is no incentive to do them any favours. The deal is going to ensure uninterupted work and decent pay increases and benefits for the majority, and as much as i can sit here and say they are getting nearly enough and they shouldnt take that deal, if im... i dont know, say JJ Arcega-Whiteside, im a 3rd round pick, coming off a pretty ordinary year, and im risking a work stoppage which will hinder my development, take time away from my contract tolling so i can hit FA and get that life changing money if im goods enough. And take money out of my pocket when all ive earned so far is 500k on a rookie deal... when i take an extra 90k now and focus on my career?

I guess its easy for me to say **** the league, this is a Bull deal. And it's easy JJ Watt and his 100m of salary made to date to say "we gotta take a stand for the future" where as Arcega-Whiteside isnt even sure he has a future yet, so why would he fight for that? NFL players have typically broken very quickly in work stoppages, unlike their counterparts and there is no reason to believe they wouldnt fold again. I think that's what makes these sort of things so interesting to me, is the push and pull of both parties

Yes, thats basically what im saying.

Just listened to a Cowboys pod with Newie Scruggs and Danny McCray. They said exactly that. The top end can afford to sit, the bottom cant.

[Northern Raider]

Pig, can you please tell me what Matt is saying. 25 words or less.

Not in 25 words or less.
I think he's saying that an increase in total revenue sharing isn't going to be something that finds its way to most players pockets unless it's combined with other factors such as min wage and PS wages etc... which ive spoken about here and i think would end up being very true. Players will read that they're getting an additional 1.5% of total revenue but if that's not supported with other things that spread that money out 99% of players wont sniff any of that extra money.

-----


Just on it though as critical as i am of the proposed deal for the players, from an owners perspective, it's exactly what they should do. As someone said on a pod today, when the owners say "this is the deal, take it or leave it and we'll see how work stoppages go... well it's not a bluff if you hold all the cards."
This is Billionaires vs Millionaires, and 70% of the player union probably cant afford a work stoppage.

So there is no incentive to do them any favours. The deal is going to ensure uninterupted work and decent pay increases and benefits for the majority, and as much as i can sit here and say they are getting nearly enough and they shouldnt take that deal, if im... i dont know, say JJ Arcega-Whiteside, im a 3rd round pick, coming off a pretty ordinary year, and im risking a work stoppage which will hinder my development, take time away from my contract tolling so i can hit FA and get that life changing money if im goods enough. And take money out of my pocket when all ive earned so far is 500k on a rookie deal... when i take an extra 90k now and focus on my career?

I guess its easy for me to say **** the league, this is a Bull deal. And it's easy JJ Watt and his 100m of salary made to date to say "we gotta take a stand for the future" where as Arcega-Whiteside isnt even sure he has a future yet, so why would he fight for that? NFL players have typically broken very quickly in work stoppages, unlike their counterparts and there is no reason to believe they wouldnt fold again. I think that's what makes these sort of things so interesting to me, is the push and pull of both parties

Yes, thats basically what im saying.

Just listened to a Cowboys pod with Newie Scruggs and Danny McCray. They said exactly that. The top end can afford to sit, the bottom cant.

Thanks Pig. I'm hearing a lot of problems but is that notice from the NFLPA the position they are taking or does it outline to content of the proposal?

Also while you're there can you give me Matt's opinion on the next contract for Dak?

[Northern Raider]

Yaaay

Some middle of the road college LB will run a 4.4 and suddenly become a 1st round prospect.

Happens every other yr

Even better when a shortass QB measures 1/4" taller than expected and catapults to no1 overall.

Remember this nonsense goes the other way too!
Dk Metcalf was a monster in college, arrived to the combine, absolutely lit it the **** on fire, save for a very ordinary 3 cone time, then all of a sudden many (and maybe i was even one of them, i cant remember where i fell on the DK analysis lol) pretended he couldnt play... then he falls to the back of the 2nd in the draft and surprise surprise, he can **** play!

Not really sure what caused the freefall of Metcalf. He was consensus no1 WR for the analysts and many had him a top 10 pick. Comes back to basing your opinion on how they play instead of statistical numbers thrown up in combine drills. I reckon these results are mostly for media hype and coaches, GMs etc don't much much stock in them.

Reckon they would use the interviews a lot more. That's their chance to get inside the players head to see if he'll fit them off the field as well as on it.

[Botman]

Thanks Pig. I'm hearing a lot of problems but is that notice from the NFLPA the position they are taking or does it outline to content of the proposal?

Also while you're there can you give me Matt's opinion on the next contract for Dak?

I think they put that notice as a outline of the proposal, but i dont think they'd bother to try and outline that level of the proposal unless they felt it was a deal with really considering. So a little of both? They want their members informed with a succinct summary of what the deal includes but negotiations have been ongoing for over a year now and this is the first proposal they've outlined to their players like this, so that probably indicates that the NFLPA feel this deal is worth taking to a vote.

Matt's going to feel bad about the next Dak contract because it's going to make him the highest paid QB in the NFL, and he isnt the best. But the option of letting Dak walk and trying to get lucky in the draft again, or taking a swing at one of the veteran guys is not worth it.
So Matt, like Jerreh is going to hold his nose and accept the deal to make Dak the highest paid player in the NFL.