ATL 2020 Off Season - Fournette to Tampa

WeekapaugGroove · Post #21 » by **WeekapaugGroove** » Thu Feb 20, 2020 2:06 am

The second coming of Nate Newton

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

WeekapaugGroove · Post #22 » by **WeekapaugGroove** » Thu Feb 20, 2020 2:09 am

RRyder823 wrote:Dunno. I think the POs are pretty close to perfect as is imo.

17 games just seems like a bad idea all around. Unless an extra bye week gets added I dont see how the union allows it

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

Here's that extra money.

Read on Twitter

I don't mind 17 but they should have a second bye. Line up the byes with Thursday football so nobody has to play on short rest.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

Post #23 » by **MickeyDavis** » Thu Feb 20, 2020 2:13 am

Once they go to 14 playoff teams it will quickly go to 16. Then best of 3 playoff series. I'm only partly joking on that one.

MartyConlonOnTheRun · Post #24 » by **MartyConlonOnTheRun** » Thu Feb 20, 2020 1:41 pm

MickeyDavis wrote:Once they go to 14 playoff teams it will quickly go to 16. Then best of 3 playoff series. I'm only partly joking on that one.

Do not like. And I think you are right.

Treebeard · Post #25 » by **Treebeard** » Thu Feb 20, 2020 3:43 pm

RRyder823 wrote:Dunno. I think the POs are pretty close to perfect as is imo.

17 games just seems like a bad idea all around. Unless an extra bye week gets added I dont see how the union allows it

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

Yup.

Post #26 » by **MickeyDavis** » Thu Feb 20, 2020 4:05 pm

Read on Twitter

Post #27 » by **MickeyDavis** » Thu Feb 20, 2020 4:07 pm

Read on Twitter

MartyConlonOnTheRun · Post #28 » by **MartyConlonOnTheRun** » Thu Feb 20, 2020 4:39 pm

MickeyDavis wrote:

Read on Twitter

Wouldn't it make it more likely the best team would win? They have a bye while the 2nd team could get eliminated earlier making it easier for the best team to advance?

Post #29 » by **MickeyDavis** » Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:03 pm

Read on Twitter

Matches Malone · Post #30 » by **Matches Malone** » Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:55 pm

Read on Twitter

WeekapaugGroove · Post #31 » by **WeekapaugGroove** » Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:28 pm

MartyConlonOnTheRun wrote:
MickeyDavis wrote:

Read on Twitter

Wouldn't it make it more likely the best team would win? They have a bye while the 2nd team could get eliminated earlier making it easier for the best team to advance?

Yeah, I looked at the replies and his argument is sometimes the 'best' team is a 2 seed and this format makes it much harder for 2 seeds. It's a weird argument.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

Post #32 » by **MickeyDavis** » Fri Feb 21, 2020 12:05 am

Matches Malone wrote:

Read on Twitter

Interesting. Would some of the new CBA start right away?

Post #33 » by **humanrefutation** » Fri Feb 21, 2020 12:44 am

MickeyDavis wrote:
Matches Malone wrote:

Read on Twitter

Interesting. Would some of the new CBA start right away?

I think that some things will be implemented immediately, like the playoff expansion. But if you're making longterm financial decisions like extensions/FA signings/releases/trades, you're going to want to know what the cap and the financials will look like going forward.

Post #34 » by **ReasonablySober** » Fri Feb 21, 2020 2:34 pm

humanrefutation wrote:
MickeyDavis wrote:
Matches Malone wrote:

Read on Twitter

Interesting. Would some of the new CBA start right away?

I think that some things will be implemented immediately, like the playoff expansion. But if you're making longterm financial decisions like extensions/FA signings/releases/trades, you're going to want to know what the cap and the financials will look like going forward.

Sounds like the players are gonna tell this new CBA to **** off.

Post #35 » by **MickeyDavis** » Fri Feb 21, 2020 3:31 pm

Read on Twitter

Post #36 » by **MickeyDavis** » Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:05 pm

Read on Twitter

Post #37 » by **humanrefutation** » Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:19 pm

I mean, one of the dumbass things about this new CBA is that players are capped at earning $250k for that Game 17 check. That's what a guy making ~$4m a year earns per game check. Why the hell should players who earn more than that agree to a 17th game and then not get fully compensated for that game?

Think about, lets say, JJ Watt, who earns about a million a game right now. Why should he agree to work an extra game if he's only going to make 25% of his salary for that game? Would you agree to work an extra shift if you're going to get a 75% pay cut for those extra hours?

GTFOH, NFL.

Post #38 » by **ReasonablySober** » Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:51 pm

humanrefutation wrote:I mean, one of the dumbass things about this new CBA is that players are capped at earning $250k for that Game 17 check. That's what a guy making ~$4m a year earns per game check. Why the hell should players who earn more than that agree to a 17th game and then not get fully compensated for that game?

Think about, lets say, JJ Watt, who earns about a million a game right now. Why should he agree to work an extra game if he's only going to make 25% of his salary for that game? Would you agree to work an extra shift if you're going to get a 75% pay cut for those extra hours?

GTFOH, NFL.

Didn't know about that. What a crock of ****.

Post #39 » by **MickeyDavis** » Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:44 pm

Read on Twitter

MartyConlonOnTheRun · Post #40 » by **MartyConlonOnTheRun** » Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:35 pm

MickeyDavis wrote:

Read on Twitter

Am I understanding the contract wrong? On the outside looking in, that seems extremely favorable to the players (I know its similar to other leagues, the players are the products, etc) but I doubt many industries are even close to have salaries (and not even all salaries) be 50% of gross revenues. The owners then are responsible for marketing, capital expenditures, looming lawsuits, etc.

The usual argument is the players make the league, but I don't find that inherently true or all that different from other industries. Apple wouldn't be Apple without top designers. At the very least, that tweet seems to mistakes revenues with net income. Players can walk away with their 50%, whereas owners have other obligations. Also, he seemed to forget all the Packers owners so it is really 360,031 owners