NFL Playoffs Expansion with a Potential 17th Game

Do you like the expanded playoffs?


  • Total voters
    184

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,160
What's the status of the television deals? Adding a 17th game seems like a big revenue boost for the networks. I assume the owners aren't wanting to do this just for the ticket revenue.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Odd that Rovell is saying this. The NFLPA fact sheet certainly reads like it’s recommending the deal. (Not saying Rovell is wrong, just that there’s a disconnect.)

Of course, context is everything. If the union led members to expect $10 billion in extra revenue and no additional games, a sheet that touts $5 billion and an extra game will go over like a fart in church. But I have no reason to believe that such a subtext exists.

Surprising to me that the NFLPA used its limited bargaining power to win concessions on player discipline. The THC thing is less surprising — it affects more players, and Goodell had telegraphed a willingness to yield, so the union probably gave up nothing to win these concessions.
 

Soxy

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
6,095
Curious to see all of this parsed out. There is a lot of good here, but I still think players should be getting closer to 50% of the revenues.

View: https://twitter.com/DarrenHeitner/status/1230646875558219776?s=19
I get that this is meant to be easily digestible bullet points, but there's a lot of ambiguity in here. The devil can be in the details, and substantial parts of this are real light on details.

"Increase in pay for all offseason activities," is a bullet point. "Mandated improvements to visiting team locker rooms," is another. Okay. What kind of timeline are we talking about? Immediately? In 3 years? Over the life of the CBA? Who knows? How much of an increase in pay? What kind of improvements?

It's pretty telling that the guy who posted this tweet responded to one of the first questions he got with: "That's my interpretation of the bullet point." Not a lot of substance with which to hang your hat on there, guy.

Take this statement, which may seem straightforward at first, but is ambiguous when you parse it out: "Reduces the penalties to players who test positive for THC, eliminating any game suspensions strictly for positive tests." The word "strictly" there is throwing me off. Does that apply to players who are in the drug program as well? Or would that supersede the "strictly for positive tests" part? Like, "We're not suspending you strictly because you tested positive; it's because of all of the other stuff you did before, and in addition to, your recent positive test." Maybe this helps the Josh Gordons of the world stay on the field; maybe it doesn't. I have no idea.

Seems like a lot of that in there. Especially in comparison to the bullet points that do actually have hard numbers attached to definitive timelines.

Maybe I just have no idea how these kind of things go (I've never been in a union), but if I was handed a document like this, I'd have a ton of questions. Expecting me to be able to vote one way or another based on this.... uh, I don't think so.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,436
Well, JJ Watt tweeted tonight that he's a "hard no," so that's a bad sign...
 

Oppo

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2009
1,576
With how unregulated CBD is, you never really know what you’re getting unless the product has independent testing.
 

Oppo

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2009
1,576
I get that this is meant to be easily digestible bullet points, but there's a lot of ambiguity in here. The devil can be in the details, and substantial parts of this are real light on details.

"Increase in pay for all offseason activities," is a bullet point. "Mandated improvements to visiting team locker rooms," is another. Okay. What kind of timeline are we talking about? Immediately? In 3 years? Over the life of the CBA? Who knows? How much of an increase in pay? What kind of improvements?

It's pretty telling that the guy who posted this tweet responded to one of the first questions he got with: "That's my interpretation of the bullet point." Not a lot of substance with which to hang your hat on there, guy.

Take this statement, which may seem straightforward at first, but is ambiguous when you parse it out: "Reduces the penalties to players who test positive for THC, eliminating any game suspensions strictly for positive tests." The word "strictly" there is throwing me off. Does that apply to players who are in the drug program as well? Or would that supersede the "strictly for positive tests" part? Like, "We're not suspending you strictly because you tested positive; it's because of all of the other stuff you did before, and in addition to, your recent positive test." Maybe this helps the Josh Gordons of the world stay on the field; maybe it doesn't. I have no idea.

Seems like a lot of that in there. Especially in comparison to the bullet points that do actually have hard numbers attached to definitive timelines.

Maybe I just have no idea how these kind of things go (I've never been in a union), but if I was handed a document like this, I'd have a ton of questions. Expecting me to be able to vote one way or another based on this.... uh, I don't think so.
I read the strictly positive test part to mean they will be suspended for selling/distributed (Greg Robinson, looking at you) not personal use. Although it does leave the door open for fines.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
I get that this is meant to be easily digestible bullet points, but there's a lot of ambiguity in here. The devil can be in the details, and substantial parts of this are real light on details.

"Increase in pay for all offseason activities," is a bullet point. "Mandated improvements to visiting team locker rooms," is another. Okay. What kind of timeline are we talking about? Immediately? In 3 years? Over the life of the CBA? Who knows? How much of an increase in pay? What kind of improvements?

It's pretty telling that the guy who posted this tweet responded to one of the first questions he got with: "That's my interpretation of the bullet point." Not a lot of substance with which to hang your hat on there, guy.

Take this statement, which may seem straightforward at first, but is ambiguous when you parse it out: "Reduces the penalties to players who test positive for THC, eliminating any game suspensions strictly for positive tests." The word "strictly" there is throwing me off. Does that apply to players who are in the drug program as well? Or would that supersede the "strictly for positive tests" part? Like, "We're not suspending you strictly because you tested positive; it's because of all of the other stuff you did before, and in addition to, your recent positive test." Maybe this helps the Josh Gordons of the world stay on the field; maybe it doesn't. I have no idea.

Seems like a lot of that in there. Especially in comparison to the bullet points that do actually have hard numbers attached to definitive timelines.

Maybe I just have no idea how these kind of things go (I've never been in a union), but if I was handed a document like this, I'd have a ton of questions. Expecting me to be able to vote one way or another based on this.... uh, I don't think so.
If you’re a player, I assume you’re relying on your agent to advise you on the details, to the extent they affect you — and also to advise you on whether you should vote to ratify the agreement.

This reads more like a “hey, look what a great deal we’re going to get you” communication from union leadership to the membership, rather than a document that’s intended to elicit a “yes” vote without further information.
 

Soxy

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
6,095
I read the strictly positive test part to mean they will be suspended for selling/distributed (Greg Robinson, looking at you) not personal use. Although it does leave the door open for fines.
If you’re a player, I assume you’re relying on your agent to advise you on the details, to the extent they affect you — and also to advise you on whether you should vote to ratify the agreement.

This reads more like a “hey, look what a great deal we’re going to get you” communication from union leadership to the membership, rather than a document that’s intended to elicit a “yes” vote without further information.
That makes sense, thanks. I'm probably parsing some of the vague bullet points too finely. It's just that this document, combined with the other media leaks we've seen, combine to paint a picture of a deal that leadership on both sides is trying to jam through before players really know what they're signing. Doesn't mean that's necessarily an accurate picture, of course.
 

BunnzMcGinty

New Member
Jul 17, 2011
268
I have always been under the impression that CBD didn't contain THC.
CBD and THC are two different compounds commonly found in cannabis. CBD can also be extracted from hemp and even synthetically synthesized, though. It’s also important to note it doesn’t have the psychoactive or euphoric effects of THC, so it doesn’t really make you high. It’s main effectiveness is for anxiety and chronic pain.
 

edoug

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
6,007
Well, JJ Watt tweeted tonight that he's a "hard no," so that's a bad sign...
The owners must've known(?) that would be the reaction. I don't know if they realize that it'll drive away players like Watt much sooner than expected. The extra punishment will not be worth it.
 

dcdrew10

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
1,397
Washington, DC via Worcester
CBD and THC are two different compounds commonly found in cannabis. CBD can also be extracted from hemp and even synthetically synthesized, though. It’s also important to note it doesn’t have the psychoactive or euphoric effects of THC, so it doesn’t really make you high. It’s main effectiveness is for anxiety and chronic pain.
When you look at CBD you often see "Isolate" or "Full Spectrum" on the label. Isolate is THC free, where as Full Spectrum has some THC in the mix, usually .3% or less. There is some evidence that CBD is more effective when combined with other cannabinoids, including THC, what is called the "entourage effect." My personal experience with CBD is that full spectrum is more effective, but not so much that I won't take isolate.

And for clarification, due to federal laws all CBD products that are sold by non-dispensary retail outlets must be extracted from hemp and not marijuana. There is still some THC in hemp, it's just so low you don't get high. It usually maxes out around .3%. Oppo is right about independent testing. There are a lot of bootleg CBD brands. Players could really get themselves screwed, though most CBD won't contain more than the .3%, since it would be a waste of money for CBD companies to use a marijuana plant over a hemp plant to produce CBD.
 

BunnzMcGinty

New Member
Jul 17, 2011
268
When you look at CBD you often see "Isolate" or "Full Spectrum" on the label. Isolate is THC free, where as Full Spectrum has some THC in the mix, usually .3% or less. There is some evidence that CBD is more effective when combined with other cannabinoids, including THC, what is called the "entourage effect." My personal experience with CBD is that full spectrum is more effective, but not so much that I won't take isolate.

And for clarification, due to federal laws all CBD products that are sold by non-dispensary retail outlets must be extracted from hemp and not marijuana. There is still some THC in hemp, it's just so low you don't get high. It usually maxes out around .3%. Oppo is right about independent testing. There are a lot of bootleg CBD brands. Players could really get themselves screwed, though most CBD won't contain more than the .3%, since it would be a waste of money for CBD companies to use a marijuana plant over a hemp plant to produce CBD.
Agreed with all your points. I’m a MMJ user in NY. The hemp derived CBD you can buy anywhere is pretty much useless in my experience. The stuff from the dispensaries, since it’s marijuana derived and for therapeutic use, is much better, the highest CBD:THC ratio they sell here is 20:1, because as you said, there’s evidence some THC increases its effectiveness. (Likewise some CBD helps mitigate unpleasant side effects of high concentrations of THC)

Don’t mean to turn this thread into the high times forum, but welcome to the NFL in 2020!
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
3,994
Burrillville, RI
that's a lot more roster spots. I can see NFL trying to entice the players.
To me, it looks like the league trying to appease and make concessions that benefit the lower level and fringe roster guys. Is it a genuine attempt to help the "masses" or pandering to try to get 51% of the players to approve?
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
^^^

I think it's one of those things where the union leadership knows it's a bad deal but it'll pass.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,154
Westwood MA
I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere, so if there is clarity, please let me know; with a 17 game schedule, will some teams get 9 home games and 8 away while others get 8 home games and 9 away? If so, that will impact playoff possibilities, 9 road games vs 8, or will there be 8, 8 and 1 neutral site game.

17 games/7 playoff teams...……………..it's obvious the owners are moving towards 18/8, so just make the move and get it over with already...…………….
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere, so if there is clarity, please let me know; with a 17 game schedule, will some teams get 9 home games and 8 away while others get 8 home games and 9 away? If so, that will impact playoff possibilities, 9 road games vs 8, or will there be 8, 8 and 1 neutral site game.

17 games/7 playoff teams...……………..it's obvious the owners are moving towards 18/8, so just make the move and get it over with already...…………….
I believe the 17th game would be a neutral site game.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,154
Westwood MA
I believe the 17th game would be a neutral site game.
Thanks; so London/Mexico City?

Or neutral around the country; depending on the team and their following (think Raiders/Packers/Cowboys/Steelers), a neutral site could turn into a semi home game for them...……………….
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
Thanks; so London/Mexico City?

Or neutral around the country; depending on the team and their following (think Raiders/Packers/Cowboys/Steelers), a neutral site could turn into a semi home game for them...……………….
Don't think there's been much specifics about it. The networks would have to agree to it with the new TV deal I think, and perhaps they would drive the input as to where the games would actually be.
 

JokersWildJIMED

Blinded by Borges
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2004
2,742
I believe the 17th game would be a neutral site game.
I heard that it would alternate, on NFL Live...ESPN. Each team would have 10 home games, with alternate years 8 during regular season 2 pre season, other year 9 home 1 pre season.

It may have been conjecture.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,777
Rotten Apple
17th game is a terrible idea. Adding a second bye is an excellent idea.
Absolutely this.

Hi, we're the NFL and we're very serious about player safety and concussions protocols.
Also NFL: Let's add more games but not more time off to recuperate.

I would also add that 1) Scarcity of product adds to overall value and 2) More games and playoff games might possibly threaten some of Brady's untouchable records and as a massive homer I can't let that happen.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
The 17th game is, I'm assuming, a concession by the league to the networks.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,154
Westwood MA
"The NFL's initial plan is to have nine home games for some teams and eight home games for the other, reversing the pattern for the following year."

That's beyond idiotic; how do you decide who gets 9 and who gets 8? Will it be by conference? Division? That will impact the playoff possibilities too; if you're fighting for a playoff spot and one of the teams your fighting with has 9 home games and you only have 8, how is that fair?

What a moronic concept.

Leave it to the NFL to fool with a great system.
 

Cotillion

New Member
Jun 11, 2019
4,926
"The NFL's initial plan is to have nine home games for some teams and eight home games for the other, reversing the pattern for the following year."

That's beyond idiotic; how do you decide who gets 9 and who gets 8? Will it be by conference? Division? That will impact the playoff possibilities too; if you're fighting for a playoff spot and one of the teams your fighting with has 9 home games and you only have 8, how is that fair?

What a moronic concept.

Leave it to the NFL to fool with a great system.
The nfl is going to screw this up?

that’s umpossible (Sic)
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
I’d be down with a London game every week — everyone plays one non-divisional game there and gets the following week off. Sounds like that’s a no-go with the players.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
If they go this route (17 games but only 1 bye), then they really need to kill the Thursday night game. Other than the season opener (for which there is plenty of time beforehand), and the Thanksgiving Day games (which can be fixed by giving those teams a bye the prior weekend; wow, what a concept!), no-one really cares about football on Thursday night. And the short week really sucks for the players, and sucks for the fans when the team's best players get hurt.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,661
where I was last at
I haven't done the math, but capping out player's additional comp at $250K for the 17th game, (ie getting a huge per game discount on the game's stars making over $4MM/season) seems like a pure money grab by the owners. Why should the best players in the game, and presumably a big reason why people watch, subsidize the owners?
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,300
deep inside Guido territory
I haven't done the math, but capping out player's additional comp at $250K for the 17th game, (ie getting a huge per game discount on the game's stars making over $4MM/season) seems like a pure money grab by the owners. Why should the best players in the game, and presumably a big reason why people watch, subsidize the owners?
The best players already take a bath in playoff games as well.
 

Brohamer of the Gods

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
3,947
Warwick, RI
Will Hartford finally get a game?

Giants or Pats? or Both?

Throwing fans outside of an easy commute to the team's home field, with a "neutral" home game might be a possible solution. A Pat's game in Springfield Ma, or Portland Me. wouldn't have the ticket revs of a game in Foxboro or London, but its a give-back to fans who otherwise would never see their favorite team live, and its about TV money anyway.

I imagine most every NFL team has satellite cities outside easy commute, and with some of the additional TV money, the stadiums could be prepped for a NFL game.

Not to date myself, but it would be like the circus coming to town.
Where would they even play in Springfield or Portland though to even get half of the crowd? Presuming it is meaningless for the Patriots to play a satellite game in the Boston Metro area, the only places in New England with over 30,000 seats are Rentschler and the Yale Bowl. After that we are down to Fitton Field at Holy Cross with 23,500. The lack of big time college football in New England makes that tough. I wouldn't be opposed to a game in Hartford every other year though, I watch on TV anyway.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._stadiums_by_capacity
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,069
UWS, NYC
The 17th game is, I'm assuming, a concession by the league to the networks.
I mentioned this earlier...adding a second bye and no 17th game provides the following benefits:
1. TO PLAYERS: Obviousply health benefits of extra rest week
2. TO NETWORKS: Additional week of advertising revenue.
3. TO OWNERS: Pricier TV deals because if #2 above. Don’t need to pay players for a 17th game.

There is no downside vs the status quo. The only downside vs. a 17-game season is to owners, and is one fewer week of ticket sales and associated on-site revenue, but that’s small potatoes compared with the addition TV revenue they’ll rake in. Moreover, I’m sure that’s more than balanced out by the owners’ being able to sleep better at night knowing they addressed a player health issue.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
by the owners’ being able to sleep better at night knowing they addressed a player health issue.
:p

The TV deal would be worth more with 17 games because the networks like certain teams (eg: NFC East Uber Allies) and the NFL actually did 2 byes in 1993 and went back the following season because ratings were down.
 

Maximus

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
5,774
Losing the 2nd bye is an issue for me. Glad to see 17 regular season games and only 3 pre-season games potentially. It will be very difficult for players with the extra regular season game in such a brutal sport. The 2 potential additional games on WC weekend is fun but they'll be some lousy teams that get into the tournament now.
 

j-man

Member
Dec 19, 2012
3,649
Arkansas
I dislike this if anything I liked the 5 team system only 1 wild card per conference

under my rules last year wouild been 1 BALT BYE 2 KC BYE 3 NE BYE 4HOU/5BUFF WINNER PLAYS Balt NFC 1 SF 2 GB 3 NO 4PHILLY/5SEA with sea getting homefield for 1 game because of better record winner plays SF and u get the KC/NE NO/GB we should had got anyway
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,958
Saskatoon Canada
The league simply won't cancel the preseason games nobody wants. They want those datesm that $. Now to make people care they are going to go to 18 regular season games. The theory is to just add a bit more cannon fodder to the rosters.