Methinks we need to get the NFL discussion into this decade. Let’s start with the CBA and proposals for 17 games/expanded playoffs:
At least it shortens the preseason.
17 games is terrible but yachts don’t buy themselves, so we’re stuck with it. Bleh.
If the Vikings give Cousins a contract extension, Zimmer and Spielman need to go.
My burning question right now: Where’s Bridgewater end up? Tampa with Arians? Could be fun.
As a former season ticket holder who had to pay the 25% pre-season tax (8 home games, 2 home pre-season games at full price), I’m happy that they are carving into the preseason for regular season. I’d rather see the preseason limited to 2 games, but hey.
How would 17 games even work? Half the teams would get 8 home, the other half 9.
And scheduling, right now the formula is home/ home division (6 games), rotating conference division teams (4 games, 3 year rotation), rotating alternate conference division (4 games, 4 year rotation), remaining 2 games are teams in your conference who finished same position last year.
Assuming the division games don’t change (why would they) then you could drop the two same position games and formulate a new way to assign 3 games. I just don’t see a logical way to do so. Would it be random?
Well this is incorrect. See those preseason games already charge full prices for tickets, and season ticket holders pay for them. So the ticket revenue is slight growth, but marginal in effect. There is going to be an attendance spike which would include increases in secondary revenue streams, such as vending.
But the big money is in TV, and that completely obliterates the stadium revenue. So depending on how the deals are structured this could be an increase (again preseason games are broadcast, so there is some revenue, but it is at a lower rate than regular season I suspect). So if the 7.35% is the max based on going from no revenue to full revenue, and .5% the minimum for going from the increase share only, I suspect the true effect is probably 2-3% increase for players. I could be wrong though.
You are right, I don’t think the NFL will get the full 6.25% now I think about it. I think it would be closer to 5% than 2-3%, but I dont have much actual basis for that other than the NFL are pretty good negotiators and playing hardball with the networks is a lot easier than playing hardball with the players.
Also, playoff game rights are even bigger. Currently, another round of playoffs, another regular season game, and one less preseason game is a TV bonanza.
Also, playoff games have higher ticket prices and more attendance, so more gate revenue there. Especially for teams which don’t sell out and/or lower season ticket holder numbers.
I’ve seen some discussion that every team will have a neutral site game… likely overseas, but one cool thing I saw would be for the Eagles and Steelers to play in Happy Valley (Penn State).
I was thinking that. And it could work. Have some designated out of division rival. So the Bears play the Colts every year, the Vikings play the Chiefs, Steelers play Eagles, Pats play Detroit because they have dirt on the commissioner and can get themselves squared against the worst teams. I could get on with something like that.
Do they get game checks for preseason games?
Per diem (weekly pay despite the name) only.
So a Kirk Cousins off day is what you’re saying? :)
I heard this yesterday and it makes zero sense. Why does a 17th game pay less than any other game? What player would agree that this is realistic? Do the owners have their revenue capped for game 17? Are they going to charge people less to attend? WTF?!
The issue is that existing contracts were made with the assumption that it’s a 16-game regular season. Going to 17 regular season games doesn’t automatically mean they get 1/16th more on that contract. It will be capped at $250K.
For most players, this isn’t an issue. But for the superstars, it sorta is. Russell Wilson is getting $35 million a year, which is basically $2.1875 million per game. You would think he would get $2.1875 million more for a 17th game, but it will be capped at $250K.
Sure, but wouldn’t the current contracts also specify performance? I.E. You play in 16 games? Seems to me the owners/league are violating contracts too.
There are all sorts of technicalities and legalities, but this is what’s apparently being proposed in the CBA discussions.
Now, it hasn’t been voted upon by players yet. There’s some talk of backlash, but not sure of the size yet.
If I was the players, at the very LEAST I’d be demanding proration of salary and compensation. You now pay me 17/16ths of what my salary was. Maybe even more, since wear and tear is cumulative, not directly proportional.
That’s certainly the issue. Every time you play an NFL game you have a not-insignificant risk of season-ending injury, or even paralysis. And then there’s the cumulative effect of even more hits to your head. It’s why they fight tooth-and-nail for every guaranteed dollar in their contract, so suddenly adding on another regular season game without proportional compensation is going to rub a bunch of them the wrong way. How many, though, is the question.
Average player salary is about $170k per game and the median salary is about $55k per game.
The owners are probably pushing an flat increase per-player that is well over the amount most players make because that will be preferred by a larger % of the players.
ON the flip side, the NFL is getting to the point where resting/sitting stars like the NBA may be a reality soon.