[ Sign In ]
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error
4 Pages<1234>
Goodell thinking off extending playoffs to 14 or 16 teams - For Fecks Sake!!!!!!!!!!
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Previous Topic Next Topic
Online Cheesey  
#31 Posted : Saturday, December 15, 2012 12:10:27 PM(UTC)
Cheesey

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 8,271
Joined: 7/28/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 74
Applause Received: 185
Originally Posted by: flep Go to Quoted Post


Would love to know what is going through this mans head.



http://www.nfl.com/news/...ering-expanding-playoffs


I can answer that.....AIR!!!
LOTS and LOTS of AIR!!!

If the NFL goes to 16 playoff teams, i'd stop watching. I mean, why even bother with the regular season? Just put ALL teams into a one game playoff, and whoever is there at the end gets the Lombardi trophy.

That's the reason i don't even watch the NBA anymore. A sub .500 team gets in, and it takes months for the so called "playoffs" to be over. It drags on and on, and i lose interest right away.
UserPostedImage
Back to top
Offline Formo  
#32 Posted : Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:21:15 PM(UTC)
Formo

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,425
Joined: 8/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 189
Applause Received: 134
Originally Posted by: gbguy20 Go to Quoted Post
Disagree. The league can't even put out 32 starting caliber quarterbacks as it is. Expansion will just lead to more teams like the Jags, who one, can't even fill half a stadium, and two can't find a QB or the rest of the personnel to field a decent team.


You missed my point. Talent gets left at the wayside in the current configuration. Teams will be forced dig in those waysides. Also, who said that EVERY team needs a quality QB? You think every 120+ D1 college team has a quality QB? Why does every team need a quality/starting QB but not a quality/starting WR or RB or any other position?

And I already addressed the point of stadiums not filling up. Jacksonville is likely a poor market, but it would stand to fill up if the environment was better.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Back to top
Offline Pack93z  
#33 Posted : Saturday, December 15, 2012 5:15:16 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

Posts: 12,091
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 266
Applause Received: 689
Originally Posted by: zombieslayer Go to Quoted Post
I used to love watching football. I may stop soon. Completely.


NFL football.. I used to purchase the NFL ticket yearly, so I could flip and watch as much NFL ball as I could.

Then the CBA bullshit, a league that is making record profits and they couldn't figure out a way to make everyone happy.

Then the former player fighting for things they didn't get when they played, some had a realistic reason to fight. Some are just trying to cash in again.

Now they continue to change the game by trying to take the root element out of it.. now they want to expand.

I quit buying any items with the NFL endorsement, even when the Packers won the Superbowl... the Sunday ticket.. soon it may be the rest.

I have said it before, this isn't the game I fell in love with 30 plus years ago...

Edited by member Saturday, December 15, 2012 11:02:12 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

People gather bundles of sticks to build bridges they never cross.

UserPostedImage
Back to top
Offline Pack93z  
#34 Posted : Sunday, December 16, 2012 9:19:37 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

Posts: 12,091
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 266
Applause Received: 689
Like I mentioned, they should discuss it with the PA before taking it public.

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
The Collective Bargaining Agreement does not address the topic. Which means, as we explained during Sunday’s edition of Football Night in America, that the NFL would have to bargain with the NFL Players Association in order to obtain the ability to add two or four playoff teams.
People gather bundles of sticks to build bridges they never cross.

UserPostedImage
Back to top
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#35 Posted : Monday, December 17, 2012 7:26:53 AM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,172
Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 6
Applause Received: 142
Originally Posted by: Pack93z Go to Quoted Post
Like I mentioned, they should discuss it with the PA before taking it public.



I believe they are mistaken. The CBA does address playoffs. It addresses scheduling, and it addresses how they can practice during the playoffs, it addresses additional pay for the playoffs. If they simply add more teams, they are not adding anything that would not be covered by the CBA. If they wanted to add another round to the playoffs, I would agree, but they would not be. It would still be Wild Card, Divisional, Conference and SB. All it would do is make 4 more teams eligible for the extra pay that is already negotiated.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Back to top
Offline Pack93z  
#36 Posted : Monday, December 17, 2012 7:32:30 AM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

Posts: 12,091
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 266
Applause Received: 689
Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins Go to Quoted Post
I believe they are mistaken. The CBA does address playoffs. It addresses scheduling, and it addresses how they can practice during the playoffs, it addresses additional pay for the playoffs. If they simply add more teams, they are not adding anything that would not be covered by the CBA. If they wanted to add another round to the playoffs, I would agree, but they would not be. It would still be Wild Card, Divisional, Conference and SB. All it would do is make 4 more teams eligible for the extra pay that is already negotiated.


No, they are correct as I understand the CBA, any additional games added to the players, regardless of timing, would result in the PA having to sign off. The CBA covers x amount of games within the season, any additional games would have to be vetted with the PA and players.

I don't think the players themselves would be against an additional teams... but they are for sure going to get some concessions back from the league to add another revenue stream to the owners and increase their injury risk.
People gather bundles of sticks to build bridges they never cross.

UserPostedImage
Back to top
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#37 Posted : Monday, December 17, 2012 7:47:27 AM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,172
Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 6
Applause Received: 142
Originally Posted by: Pack93z Go to Quoted Post
No, they are correct as I understand the CBA, any additional games added to the players, regardless of timing, would result in the PA having to sign off. The CBA covers x amount of games within the season, any additional games would have to be vetted with the PA and players.

I don't think the players themselves would be against an additional teams... but they are for sure going to get some concessions back from the league to add another revenue stream to the owners and increase their injury risk.


I don't see that in the CBA, and I have read it. I've searched it for every reference to the playoffs. It never specifies 12 teams or how the playoff teams are determined or how seating is done. Or who has home field and who travels.

But it does specify how players will be payed for playing in Wildcard games or all playoff games. Practice limitations. I just don't see grounds where additional wildcard teams breaches or is outside of anything in or not in the CBA.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Back to top
Offline Pack93z  
#38 Posted : Monday, December 17, 2012 8:25:57 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

Posts: 12,091
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 266
Applause Received: 689
First, glad to see there is more than one complete junkie in the crowd. :)

Onto the statements where the NFLPA needs to approve the structure changes, the CBA adopts and abides by the NFL bylaws.

2012 CBA

NFL Bylaws

2012 Amendment to the Bylaws

In the CBA... Article 2.. Section 4.

Quote:
Section 4. Scope of Agreement:
(a) This Agreement represents the complete understanding of the parties on all subjects covered herein, and there will be no change in the terms and conditions of this Agreement without mutual consent. Except as otherwise provided in Article 47, Section 6, on Union Security, the NFLPA and the NFL waive all rights to bargain with one another concerning any subject covered or not covered in this Agreement for the duration of this Agreement, including the provisions of the NFL Constitution and By-laws; provided, however, that if any proposed change in the NFL Constitution and Bylaws could significantly affect the terms and conditions of employment of NFL play-ers, then the NFL will give the NFLPA notice of and negotiate the proposed change in good faith.



Within the Bylaws, the postseason is defined as... the bylaws define all things like league year, roster rules, etc. Hence why they amended the bylaws this preseason for the IR with return designation and altering the roster limits.

Anyway.. Article XX of the bylaws defines the playoff seeding with # of teams and and the order in which they are seeded.

Quote:
20.1 The four Division Champions and the two Wild Card clubs (the two clubs with the best records other than the Division Champions) from each conference will participate in the postseason.


Later back in the CBA,

Quote:
ARTICLE 37 POSTSEASON PAY
Section 1. System: A four-tiered (“wild card” game, division playoff game, conference championship and Super Bowl game) play-off system will be used and continued throughout the term of this Agreement.



So my friend, yes it is defined, governed and agreed upon by both the league and the NFLPA.

People gather bundles of sticks to build bridges they never cross.

UserPostedImage
Back to top
Offline Pack93z  
#39 Posted : Monday, December 17, 2012 8:31:15 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

Posts: 12,091
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 266
Applause Received: 689
And sorry for the delay in posting this.. long day of finalizing Christmas shopping.. hell of a way to spend a vacation day. </Sarcasm>
People gather bundles of sticks to build bridges they never cross.

UserPostedImage
Back to top
thanks 1 user applaud's Pack93z for this useful post.
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#40 Posted : Monday, December 17, 2012 9:07:20 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,172
Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 6
Applause Received: 142
As i read the article and section what it says, as it pertains to the subject at hand. That the NFLPA would need to show that the league adding playoff teams, would significantly affect the terms and conditions of their employment.

It doesn't say that any change to the bylaws or nfl constitution has to go through the PA. Only if the change would significantly affect the terms.

And I don't see how they would establish significant change when the compensation and structure is already set.

The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Back to top
Offline Pack93z  
#41 Posted : Monday, December 17, 2012 9:16:22 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

Posts: 12,091
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 266
Applause Received: 689
Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins Go to Quoted Post
As i read the article and section what it says, as it pertains to the subject at hand. That the NFLPA would need to show that the league adding playoff teams, would significantly affect the terms and conditions of their employment.

It doesn't say that any change to the bylaws or nfl constitution has to go through the PA. Only if the change would significantly affect the terms.

And I don't see how they would establish significant change when the compensation and structure is already set.



92 additional players performing in the postseason would not constitute a significant change? And the other teams players having to perform in additional games as well because of the add.

But yet changing the cutdown days would be a significant change? Adding a IR exemption that would effect at the max 32 players is considered a significant change. Yes, adding a playoff team to each league is a significant change to the bylaws. Citing case example, the IR exemption was almost shelved because the NFLPA and NFL couldn't originally come to terms on concessions.. eventually they came back to the table and hammered it out.

Continue to believe as you may.
People gather bundles of sticks to build bridges they never cross.

UserPostedImage
Back to top
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#42 Posted : Monday, December 17, 2012 9:42:11 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,172
Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 6
Applause Received: 142
Originally Posted by: Pack93z Go to Quoted Post
92 additional players performing in the postseason would not constitute a significant change? And the other teams players having to perform in additional games as well because of the add.

But yet changing the cutdown days would be a significant change? Adding a IR exemption that would effect at the max 32 players is considered a significant change. Yes, adding a playoff team to each league is a significant change to the bylaws. Citing case example, the IR exemption was almost shelved because the NFLPA and NFL couldn't originally come to terms on concessions.. eventually they came back to the table and hammered it out.

Continue to believe as you may.


No 92 additional players wouldn't be a significant change as it pertains to the CBA. It is still 4 wild card games being played and the same number of players playing in them. And the payment and practice schedules are specified. Players are getting paid for the games they play.

And yes, cut down days, IR exemption was significant because how and when the players can practice and come is something that had to be spelled out that wasn't.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Back to top
Offline Pack93z  
#43 Posted : Monday, December 17, 2012 9:56:05 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

Posts: 12,091
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 266
Applause Received: 689
Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins Go to Quoted Post
No 92 additional players wouldn't be a significant change as it pertains to the CBA. It is still 4 wild card games being played and the same number of players playing in them. And the payment and practice schedules are specified. Players are getting paid for the games they play.

And yes, cut down days, IR exemption was significant because how and when the players can practice and come is something that had to be spelled out that wasn't.



But that is the thing... the IR and cut down days/player counts were defined. They amended the bylaws to change them.

In the same fashion that adding work days to at least 92 players is a significant change to their contract, the league year and schedules. I say as least 92 players, as there are other players that will be required to practice and prepare for additional games. Matters little that the compensation is set, it does matter that at least 92 players are putting their bodies and careers at risk for additional games. Hence why it would amount to a significant change.

The roster counts and cutdowns is a more valid comparison, the league is asking for and extending the work schedule for union workers. Similar to what they are asking for by adding playoff games.


People gather bundles of sticks to build bridges they never cross.

UserPostedImage
Back to top
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#44 Posted : Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:11:22 AM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,172
Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 6
Applause Received: 142
Originally Posted by: Pack93z Go to Quoted Post
But that is the thing... the IR and cut down days/player counts were defined. They amended the bylaws to change them.

In the same fashion that adding work days to at least 92 players is a significant change to their contract, the league year and schedules. I say as least 92 players, as there are other players that will be required to practice and prepare for additional games. Matters little that the compensation is set, it does matter that at least 92 players are putting their bodies and careers at risk for additional games. Hence why it would amount to a significant change.

The roster counts and cutdowns is a more valid comparison, the league is asking for and extending the work schedule for union workers. Similar to what they are asking for by adding playoff games.




It isn't adding work days to what any player expects or hopes to be playing when the preseason starts. You seem to be thinking of it like they are being told they have to work labor day. If it went to court, all that would need to be done is ask any player. When the season starts, do you hope to be playing in the playoffs. they would all answer yes.

A similar situation would have been when the pro-bowl was moved from after the SB to before. It made it so None of the players in the superbowl could play so an additional group of players had the chance. It isn't an increase in the number of players who have to play, only a change in which players have the chance.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Back to top
Offline Porforis  
#45 Posted : Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:17:56 AM(UTC)
Porforis

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,604
Joined: 8/22/2009(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Applause Given: 140
Applause Received: 294
This is PackersHome.com, not FootballLawyersHome.com.
UserPostedImage
Back to top
thanks 1 user applaud's Porforis for this useful post.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages<1234>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF 2.0.0 BETA 2 | YAF © 2003-2013, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.512 seconds.