NFLPA representatives met for eight hours on Thursday, union president Eric Winston confirmed (on Twitter). But no vote on the owners’ CBA proposal took place, Mike Jones of USA Today tweets.
A vote was not planned for Thursday, per Jones, who adds the belief as of now is ownership must further sweeten the pot for the players’ side to consider adding a game to the schedule. More meetings are on tap.
The subject of a deadline for the players to accept the offer has surfaced, but the reported “rough” March 18 date previously floated as a junction point in these proceedings may not be entirely accurate. Both NFLPA spokesman George Atallah and Steelers guard Ramon Foster refuted the notion of a March 18 deadline existing, and ESPN adjusted the report (via Pro Football Talk).
Nevertheless, March 18 is an important date; that’s the start of the 2020 league year. As it stands, final-CBA-year modifications — no post-June 1 cuts and the option of using both the franchise and transition tags among them — will go into place if no new agreement is in place. Given the vocal opposition to the owners’ 17-game proposal from the players’ side, and the prospect of 16-game proponent Russell Okung succeeding Winston as NFLPA president in March, the CBA discussions are entering a crucial stretch.
The owners’ proposal nearly wipes out punishment for positive marijuana tests, slightly ups the players’ revenue split and increases both the league minimum salaries and team spending floors. Unspecified adjustments to the franchise tag and fifth-year option are included as well. But the 17-game season is a sticking point. The owners’ rumored refusal to include a second bye week — a format attempted only once, in 1993 — may further entrench players against the proposal.
When the CBA does finally come to a vote, it will begin with the union’s 32 player representatives. With two-thirds approval, it would move to a union-wide vote among all players. After that, if 50% of players and two-thirds of owners say yes, it’s a done deal. The current CBA expires in March 2021.
The owners aren’t giving enough.
What’s wrong with two bye weeks? Then the Super Bowl
(when do they get rid of those ridiculous roman numerals?)
ends on Presidents Day weekend. Then the petition from smart teenagers on change.org goes away.
A win-win for everyone!
I don’t see why 2 byes is bad for the owners. they would add another week of games for broadcast from the current 17 weeks to 19 weeks with the extra game and bye. more tv revenue for the extra week for basically nothing.
Your assuming a schedule with staggered byes throughout the season but if the NFL uses the format from 1993 that means two weeks of no football at all.
It doesn’t need to use that format is he byes are spread out. There are enough games and teams that each week here should be games played. All it does it stretch out the season which is great for fans and owners. And that’s what Goddell wants a way, he has always wanted the NFL to be a year round sport. The longer the season the better. Take away a preseason game, stretch out the season, and it doesn’t hurt players either. It’s a win, win. I think the season should start even a little later. Early September is still summer and too hot for football.
Losing a pre-season game means already poorly prepared start of September teams are simply not ready at all. Fans get to pay full price for what is effectively pre-season football. Players go at full game speed, injuries be damned before they are ready, coaches don’t have enough time to evaluate walk-on/UDFA talent.
The extra week is sham and a scam by greedy owners. The players are right to resist.
1993 did NOT have 2 weeks with no football. There were 18 weeks with games, but each team had 2-bye weeks.
i dont see why any number of byes is bad. its not like fans are walking away from the game over an off week. they should want the season to last longer so they make profits for longer. (presuming the teams make more money during the season in merchandise than during the offseason)
The only way to make a 17 game schedule work with one bye is to get rid of Monday and Thursday games, Sunday games with start times after 4PM ET and of course trips to exotic foreign locations like Winnipeg.
they dont want to get rid of the extra televised games. i personally think they should just stagger the games on both Saturday and Sunday. televise the same number both days and youre already televising more than the current system can. one day less of rest (and more frequently one extra) should be preferable to the current system, especially if they add en extra bye.
I don’t think they can play games on Saturday, something in the rules or has to do with college.
Seriously, SATURDAY is college game day and Sunday is Pro day. Monday was the suppose to be the Game of the Week but in the day. Thursday was an extra day of Money and to break up the week.
During the Pro Bowl, many players said they were opposed to the extra game. Now they’ll do it for a bit more sweetness? Is the union really listening to their players?