Football No New CBA Without an 18-Game Season?

Mecca · 07-24-2019, 04:58 AM

https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/07/23/nf...18-game-season

By ANDREW BRANDT July 23, 2019
Before getting to the column, a note about how I spend my birthday last Friday: sitting for the NFLPA agent exam to gain certification to represent NFL players. As part of my partnership with Gary Vaynerchuk and Vayner Sports, I agreed to become certified. And the room of wannabe agents was full of “my people,” many commenting that they studied for the exam in part by reading this space and listening to my podcasts (all the more pressure for me to pass with flying colors). There were about 220 aspiring agents attempting to join the current registered group of roughly 800. My sense is that the pass rate will be low, perhaps under 50%, as the NFLPA would like to cull the herd. Regardless, there will be more agents (including me).

On to the column …

CBA? Only if 18 games
My wish that the NFL and NFLPA move on CBA negotiations appears to have been answered. Reports indicate that talks are happening, even with some momentum. Parallel reports have the NFL raising the issue of a potential 18-game season, with predictable pushback from the union. While the 18-game season will draw much debate, I don’t know see how a CBA is negotiated without it.

Negotiations, by necessity, require concessions by both sides, and each party’s strategy of having “gives” in their arsenal to achieve “gets.” The NFLPA ’s wish list for “gets” would include, but is not be limited to:

(1) Improved revenue split from approximately 47% of league revenues (after having roughly 50% in the prior CBA);|
(2) Improved minimum team spending thresholds and timing windows, above the current 89% threshold, which is only inspected every four years;
(3) Shortened rookie contracts: from five years to four for first-round players; four years to three for other picks, to allow earlier free agency gains;
(4) The end of or limitations on the franchise tag;
(5) The end of or limitations on the commissioner’s power over personal conduct;
(6) The end of or limitations on discipline for marijuana use;
(7) The meaningful sharing of new revenues associated with legalized gambling.

This wish list is great, but raises the question: What, exactly, is the NFLPA going to offer the NFL to achieve any of these desired outcomes? I can’t think of a single thing, except … 18 games. With the NFLPA giving up many concessions in 2011, this is the only paved path to a new CBA.

What if, say, the NFLPA agrees to an 18-game season in return for the players’ revenue share going up two percentage points, from 47% to 49%? These two points would not only, over the life of the deal, move billions of dollars from the owners’ side to the players’ side, but also give the players 49% (not 47%) of the incremental revenue from two extra games per season. There is no other “give” the NFLPA has that is nearly as valuable.

I always say two things about a multi-issue negotiation such as this: (1) Everything’s negotiable, and (2) Nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. This CBA negotiation will definitely be complicated, as the NFL is still looking for even more “gets”—such as further stadium credits—even after extracting what it did in 2011. But for the NFLPA to get any meaningful wins from the league in this CBA negotiation, the 18-game season is their paramount “give.”

Sure, there’s NFLPA pushback (we don’t expect them to say “Sure!”). And yes, adding two meaningful games flies in the face of the league’s stated priority of making the game safer. However, the business of sports always wins.

Melvin Gordon’s uphill climb
As an advocate for players being properly valued for their services, I feel for Melvin Gordon (and all NFL running backs) in his pursuit of an upgraded contract and his consequent holdout threat. But he is fighting a losing battle.

NFL running backs are stuck in a system that, because of the position’s short shelf life, works against them. Prime earning years for running backs are before and during their undervalued rookie contracts. All of those unpaid carries that Gordon had at Wisconsin, or that Ezekiel Elliott had at Ohio State, worked well in getting those players drafted high, but will lead to diminishing returns on future income. For what other position do we discuss “tread on the tire”? Query this: Does production early in a running back’s career actually help his drive for a new contract or hurt it?

Gordon and his agent are trying to get that one big contract of his career—and running backs only get one, if that—now, as opposed to waiting for an uncertain marketplace after this season. The past year Le’Veon Bell was able to negotiate with all NFL teams and only found one, the Jets, bidding for his services, and the league’s highest-paid running back, Todd Gurley, was seamlessly replaced by journeyman C.J. Anderson down the stretch for the Rams. Some NFL teams are not only reluctant to reward a productive running back with a third contract, but even hesitant to hand out a second one!

Although it would never happen, the NFL draft eligibility rule that requires players to be three years removed from high school should really be amended to exclude running back. Those players need their own union; their plight is that much different from other positions.

Melvin Gordon may have very good reasons to have his contract upgraded. He just plays the wrong position to have any leverage to do so.

Tyreek Hill and the limited shelf life of outrage
The NFL’s decision not to discipline Tyreek Hill is a case study for the changing nature of the league’s personal conduct policy and how the luxury of time can tame the social media mob.

There was no video of Hill (as there was with Ray Rice, who was suspended indefinitely, and Hill’s former teammate Kareem Hunt, who was given an eight-game suspension), but there were reports of disturbing audio. Once those reports surfaced, the Twitter crowd mobilized, demanding Hill’s release and speculating that, like Rice, he would never play football again. Both the NFL and the Chiefs resisted the urge to act, and the outrage, even from Twitter, was unsustainable.

Now, the reaction to HIll’s non-discipline is muted compared to the pitchforks that came out when the audio comments were reported. It is a lesson for all businesses, especially the NFL: Outrage is inevitable, but so is that outrage being replaced by outrage over something else. (This, of course, is something the Tweeter-In-Chief knows very well).

Ultimately, the problem with commissioner discipline regarding domestic violence is not that it is too harsh (post-video Rice, Hunt, Ezekiel Elliott); nor is it that it is too soft (pre-video Rice, Hill). Rather, it is too arbitrary.

Transparency breeds trust; if the NFL had clear and public criteria for discipline—or lack thereof—it would be much better served in the court of public opinion.

What I want to add to this is if you really think about it, 18 games paves the way for them to expand to 36 teams. More games and expansion are really the only viable ways left for them to increase profit.

**007** · 07-24-2019, 05:12 AM

Jesus, the league needs to lose a couple teams, NOT expand. talent pool is limited already.

Mecca · 07-24-2019, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 007

Jesus, the league needs to lose a couple teams, NOT expand. talent pool is limited already.

They're going to expand.....international expansion is something they want badly.

**notorious** · 07-24-2019, 05:19 AM

They are going to squander the golden goose.

**007** · 07-24-2019, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

They're going to expand.....international expansion is something they want badly.

Thus proving Mark Cuban right. The NFL will implode and it will be their own greed that causes it.

InChiefsHeaven · 07-24-2019, 05:24 AM

I don't know who this guy is, but that's a really good article...weird that it comes from SI...

Mecca · 07-24-2019, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

I don't know who this guy is, but that's a really good article...weird that it comes from SI...

He use to work for Green Bay in their finance department so he has knowledge of what he wrote about.

FAX · 07-24-2019, 05:28 AM

Perhaps Mac N. Cheese can cover the Tijuana Chingadas ...

FAX

nychief · 07-24-2019, 05:35 AM

misleading headline.

Chris Meck · 07-24-2019, 05:39 AM

I ****ing hate an 18 game season. HATE IT.

Mecca · 07-24-2019, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nychief

misleading headline.

Eh it's his opinion which honestly makes sense, how do the players get any of the things they want without conceding something?

displacedinMN · 07-24-2019, 06:20 AM

yippie. More thursday night sucky games. More injuries.

Not a fan.

Mecca · 07-24-2019, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by displacedinMN

yippie. More thursday night sucky games. More injuries.

Not a fan.

Oh just wait....they're going to want to expand before long also...I've read some things about this and some people think they may push all the way to 40 teams within the next 20 years.

You're looking at a longer season...more byes...more teams and more playoff teams.

Hence adding 6-8 weeks to the season and drastically increasing revenue.

oldman · 07-24-2019, 06:39 AM

I'd support:
(5) The end of or limitations on the commissioner’s power over personal conduct;
(6) The end of or limitations on discipline for marijuana use;
(7) The meaningful sharing of new revenues associated with legalized gambling.

The real discussion here is the 18 game season and how players will be compensated for it. Adding 2% to the players fund just doesn't cut it. If they want to have the 18 game season, they have to cut 2 preseason games, add an additional bye week, and expand rosters to 57.

Adding new teams, especially with the expansion of rosters further dilutes the talent pool.

Mecca · 07-24-2019, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldman

I'd support:
(5) The end of or limitations on the commissioner’s power over personal conduct;
(6) The end of or limitations on discipline for marijuana use;
(7) The meaningful sharing of new revenues associated with legalized gambling.

The real discussion here is the 18 game season and how players will be compensated for it. Adding 2% to the players fund just doesn't cut it. If they want to have the 18 game season, they have to cut 2 preseason games, add an additional bye week, and expand rosters to 57.

Adding new teams, especially with the expansion of rosters further dilutes the talent pool.

It does but to the owners that is a ton more money and to players it's more jobs...

Expansion probably isn't the best idea but everyone should probably prepare that it is going to happen. Other leagues are getting ready to add more teams.

07-24-2019, 04:58 AM
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $2337050	No New CBA Without an 18-Game Season? https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/07/23/nf...18-game-season By ANDREW BRANDT July 23, 2019 Before getting to the column, a note about how I spend my birthday last Friday: sitting for the NFLPA agent exam to gain certification to represent NFL players. As part of my partnership with Gary Vaynerchuk and Vayner Sports, I agreed to become certified. And the room of wannabe agents was full of “my people,” many commenting that they studied for the exam in part by reading this space and listening to my podcasts (all the more pressure for me to pass with flying colors). There were about 220 aspiring agents attempting to join the current registered group of roughly 800. My sense is that the pass rate will be low, perhaps under 50%, as the NFLPA would like to cull the herd. Regardless, there will be more agents (including me). On to the column … CBA? Only if 18 games My wish that the NFL and NFLPA move on CBA negotiations appears to have been answered. Reports indicate that talks are happening, even with some momentum. Parallel reports have the NFL raising the issue of a potential 18-game season, with predictable pushback from the union. While the 18-game season will draw much debate, I don’t know see how a CBA is negotiated without it. Negotiations, by necessity, require concessions by both sides, and each party’s strategy of having “gives” in their arsenal to achieve “gets.” The NFLPA ’s wish list for “gets” would include, but is not be limited to: (1) Improved revenue split from approximately 47% of league revenues (after having roughly 50% in the prior CBA);\| (2) Improved minimum team spending thresholds and timing windows, above the current 89% threshold, which is only inspected every four years; (3) Shortened rookie contracts: from five years to four for first-round players; four years to three for other picks, to allow earlier free agency gains; (4) The end of or limitations on the franchise tag; (5) The end of or limitations on the commissioner’s power over personal conduct; (6) The end of or limitations on discipline for marijuana use; (7) The meaningful sharing of new revenues associated with legalized gambling. This wish list is great, but raises the question: What, exactly, is the NFLPA going to offer the NFL to achieve any of these desired outcomes? I can’t think of a single thing, except … 18 games. With the NFLPA giving up many concessions in 2011, this is the only paved path to a new CBA. What if, say, the NFLPA agrees to an 18-game season in return for the players’ revenue share going up two percentage points, from 47% to 49%? These two points would not only, over the life of the deal, move billions of dollars from the owners’ side to the players’ side, but also give the players 49% (not 47%) of the incremental revenue from two extra games per season. There is no other “give” the NFLPA has that is nearly as valuable. I always say two things about a multi-issue negotiation such as this: (1) Everything’s negotiable, and (2) Nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. This CBA negotiation will definitely be complicated, as the NFL is still looking for even more “gets”—such as further stadium credits—even after extracting what it did in 2011. But for the NFLPA to get any meaningful wins from the league in this CBA negotiation, the 18-game season is their paramount “give.” Sure, there’s NFLPA pushback (we don’t expect them to say “Sure!”). And yes, adding two meaningful games flies in the face of the league’s stated priority of making the game safer. However, the business of sports always wins. Melvin Gordon’s uphill climb As an advocate for players being properly valued for their services, I feel for Melvin Gordon (and all NFL running backs) in his pursuit of an upgraded contract and his consequent holdout threat. But he is fighting a losing battle. NFL running backs are stuck in a system that, because of the position’s short shelf life, works against them. Prime earning years for running backs are before and during their undervalued rookie contracts. All of those unpaid carries that Gordon had at Wisconsin, or that Ezekiel Elliott had at Ohio State, worked well in getting those players drafted high, but will lead to diminishing returns on future income. For what other position do we discuss “tread on the tire”? Query this: Does production early in a running back’s career actually help his drive for a new contract or hurt it? Gordon and his agent are trying to get that one big contract of his career—and running backs only get one, if that—now, as opposed to waiting for an uncertain marketplace after this season. The past year Le’Veon Bell was able to negotiate with all NFL teams and only found one, the Jets, bidding for his services, and the league’s highest-paid running back, Todd Gurley, was seamlessly replaced by journeyman C.J. Anderson down the stretch for the Rams. Some NFL teams are not only reluctant to reward a productive running back with a third contract, but even hesitant to hand out a second one! Although it would never happen, the NFL draft eligibility rule that requires players to be three years removed from high school should really be amended to exclude running back. Those players need their own union; their plight is that much different from other positions. Melvin Gordon may have very good reasons to have his contract upgraded. He just plays the wrong position to have any leverage to do so. Tyreek Hill and the limited shelf life of outrage The NFL’s decision not to discipline Tyreek Hill is a case study for the changing nature of the league’s personal conduct policy and how the luxury of time can tame the social media mob. There was no video of Hill (as there was with Ray Rice, who was suspended indefinitely, and Hill’s former teammate Kareem Hunt, who was given an eight-game suspension), but there were reports of disturbing audio. Once those reports surfaced, the Twitter crowd mobilized, demanding Hill’s release and speculating that, like Rice, he would never play football again. Both the NFL and the Chiefs resisted the urge to act, and the outrage, even from Twitter, was unsustainable. Now, the reaction to HIll’s non-discipline is muted compared to the pitchforks that came out when the audio comments were reported. It is a lesson for all businesses, especially the NFL: Outrage is inevitable, but so is that outrage being replaced by outrage over something else. (This, of course, is something the Tweeter-In-Chief knows very well). Ultimately, the problem with commissioner discipline regarding domestic violence is not that it is too harsh (post-video Rice, Hunt, Ezekiel Elliott); nor is it that it is too soft (pre-video Rice, Hill). Rather, it is too arbitrary. Transparency breeds trust; if the NFL had clear and public criteria for discipline—or lack thereof—it would be much better served in the court of public opinion. What I want to add to this is if you really think about it, 18 games paves the way for them to expand to 36 teams. More games and expansion are really the only viable ways left for them to increase profit.
Posts: 111,117

07-24-2019, 05:12 AM	#2
007 Shaken. Not stirred. Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: London Casino cash: $13950126 VARSITY	Jesus, the league needs to lose a couple teams, NOT expand. talent pool is limited already. __________________ My dear girl, there are some things that just aren’t done. Such as, drinking Dom Perignon ’53 above the temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s just as bad as listening to the Beatles without earmuffs.
Posts: 65,557	1 0

07-24-2019, 05:19 AM	#4
notorious Supporter Join Date: May 2005 Location: Who knows? Casino cash: $2645884	They are going to squander the golden goose.
Posts: 83,553

07-24-2019, 05:24 AM	#6
InChiefsHeaven Rockin' yer FACE OFF! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Omaha, Nebraska Casino cash: $3624937	I don't know who this guy is, but that's a really good article...weird that it comes from SI... __________________ We have a million reasons for failure, but not one excuse... Die Donks, DIE!! Holy Crap fellas!!! We did it!!! THREE TIMES!!!
Posts: 25,806

07-24-2019, 05:28 AM	#8
FAX testing ... 1, 2, 3 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Tennessee Casino cash: $6753759	Perhaps Mac N. Cheese can cover the Tijuana Chingadas ... FAX
Posts: 44,492

07-24-2019, 05:35 AM	#9
nychief MVP Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: NYC Casino cash: $6909466	misleading headline. __________________ Good Time Charlie, Uncle Doobie and the Great Frisco Freakout.
Posts: 7,884

07-24-2019, 05:39 AM	#10
Chris Meck MVP Join Date: May 2001 Location: midtown KC Casino cash: $1704910	I ****ing hate an 18 game season. HATE IT.
Posts: 17,569

07-24-2019, 06:20 AM	#12
displacedinMN It was not a fair catch Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Correcting papers Casino cash: $2662630	yippie. More thursday night sucky games. More injuries. Not a fan. __________________ #investigatecarlcheffers
Posts: 36,527

07-24-2019, 06:39 AM	#14
oldman Curmudgeon Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: North by Northwest Casino cash: $5836784	I'd support: (5) The end of or limitations on the commissioner’s power over personal conduct; (6) The end of or limitations on discipline for marijuana use; (7) The meaningful sharing of new revenues associated with legalized gambling. The real discussion here is the 18 game season and how players will be compensated for it. Adding 2% to the players fund just doesn't cut it. If they want to have the 18 game season, they have to cut 2 preseason games, add an additional bye week, and expand rosters to 57. Adding new teams, especially with the expansion of rosters further dilutes the talent pool.
Posts: 5,319