The prospect of a 17-game season remains at the center of CBA talks between the NFL and the NFLPA. However, the expanded regular season might not include two bye weeks, Albert Breer of The MMQB tweets.
[RELATED: Okung To Run For NFLPA President]
Nothing is finalized – or even close to it – but Breer hears that the 17-game season being discussed would include a three-game preseason, a lighter load in training camp, a revamped offseason calendar, and still only one bye week per team. It’s a departure from the last update we heard: the two sides were reportedly mulling an extra bye to offset the extra wear-and-tear on players.
With an odd number of games, the additional contest would likely occur on a neutral site. It remains to be seen how the league would organize the new schedule, or whether the extra game would be inter- or intra-conference. For what it’s worth, the owners seem confident that the 17th game will happen.
The expanded season is just one of many issues at stake in the new CBA. Players want at least 48% of the revenue and the owners’ latest offer pushed the split close to that threshold. In order to get a bigger piece of the pie, the players will likely have to agree to the extra game or play hardball. Some figures in the union, like NFLPA presidential candidate and veteran offensive lineman Russell Okung, are in favor of Option B.
“Are we in an equitable agreement with management?” Okung said. “Right now, the answer is no. This will take as long as it needs to…I expect more, and I’m not willing to be bashful about saying that. I’ve made it really clear we need to exhaust every single opportunity we have in order to put our players in a better situation to take care of themselves, their families and to protect the future of this game.”
well if they don’t like odd numbers of weeks than just add 3 byes
The season is 17 weeks long. That’s an odd number. 1 more game just makes it 18 weeks long.
oh duh youre right. now im a bit confused.
Call me obtuse…… I don’t understand why the players want 48% of the revenue on top of the spiraling salaries they already receive. What is it I am not understanding?
More money means players get paid more. Less money means owners make more money.
Understood….. but the players want more pay but do not take on any of the additional costs/risks related to the business. Sounds like they should choose one or the other
They take on enormous health risks and there is currently ZERO risk being an NFL owner. Huge TV contracts & sold out stadiums. Why else does a horrible owner like the Ford’s keep the team instead of selling the team? It’s a cash cow!! Players have no Guaranteed contracts & can’t even become unrestricted free agents without some restrictions. They have the worst CBA of any of the big sports. Football has incredibly high revenues & have zero cost for development of players. Even the worst teams & worst owners could sell their team tomorrow and make money hand over fist. This isn’t the 1960’s NFL, today’s NFL make $$$$$ & will continue to make $$$. If they want to lower their so called “risk” , sell the team. Plenty of Billionaires would line up in a nano second!
You make some a very good points. I think that the enormous health risks -which Are quite serious- Can be reduced by the players choosing other occupations. The players chose this occupation knowing those risks. If it helps… I would be happy to employ as many as need be. Let them feel what a real job is like and see if they change there tunes.
Said the player that has made 10s of millions of dollars to the players that are trying to survive 3 years in the league