# 2011-2020 NFL CBA Discussion thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [July 22, 2011, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-2020-nfl-cba-discussion-thread/589923 "2011-07-22T00:08:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-2020-nfl-cba-discussion-thread/589923/22 "2011-07-25T17:39:35Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > Any snarky remarks about the Raiders being the only team to abstain from the approval vote? I suppose this could constitute snark, but the bottom line is that Al Davis has been pissed at the NFL for 45 years, since he was Commissioner of the AFL and thought that the AFL could make the NFL come to them. He certainly harbored a grudge against Pete Rozelle. His manipulations with Oakland and LA involved a threatened antitrust lawsuit and he testified on behalf of the USFL during their big lawsuit against the NFL in the 1980s. I honestly believe that he would spend all of his money to kill the NFL out of spite if he could do it. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-2020-nfl-cba-discussion-thread/589923/23 "2011-07-25T19:17:43Z")
The upside is it appears that we will have football. Lot of downside, too, though. Especially the draconian limits on full pad practices during the season. Tackling is already pretty sloppy in the NFL, and less practice ain’t gonna help that. Also not liking the potential for an 18 game season. 16 games is plenty. And I’m not real confident in the opt out clause…apparently either side can nix the whole deal in 2015 or after. Not promising long term stability there. Didn’t see any details about a rookie salary cap, but I hope there is one. I just don’t see the wisdom in giving a draft pick piles of money before he’s even played a game. I think that money should go to veterans. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-2020-nfl-cba-discussion-thread/589923/24 "2011-07-25T19:29:58Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > The upside is it appears that we will have football. Lot of downside, too, though. Especially the draconian limits on full pad practices during the season. Tackling is already pretty sloppy in the NFL, and less practice ain’t gonna help that. Agreed. But tackling has been declining for so long in favor of offensive production that good defenses will be even more impressive. As a Steelers fan, it works for me. > [@](#): > > Also not liking the potential for an 18 game season. 16 games is plenty. Also agreed. I’m curious about whether the owners will want to play chicken with that. According to Peter King (as referenced above): > [@](#): > > Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio reported Sunday that the league could unilaterally cut the preseason schedule from four games to two in '13 or any subsequent year of the agreement. The players would have the option to either play 16 regular-season games and two preseason games, or increase the regular season to 18 games per team. The upshot: Players would lose money if they stayed at 16 plus two. Everybody loses in that deal, including the fans. Preseason ball isn’t very good, but it gives the management a chance to evaluate the talent under game conditions. Two fewer preseason games means that the players will certainly be somewhat inferior under the best of circumstances. Add to that the increased possibility of injury and the games are diminished. And for what? Two more games that won’t earn notably more money than preseason games? Big mistake. The owners will get burned if they try this, I believe. > [@](#): > > And I’m not real confident in the opt out clause…apparently either side can nix the whole deal in 2015 or after. Not promising long term stability there. Apparently the opt-out clauses come with some pretty stringent triggers which will serve to keep both parties honest, so I’m fine with that. > [@](#): > > Didn’t see any details about a rookie salary cap, but I hope there is one. I just don’t see the wisdom in giving a draft pick piles of money before he’s even played a game. I think that money should go to veterans. The word is that the rookies took a BIG hit. I’m perfectly OK with that, because as you said they haven’t done a damn thing but be drafted yet. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-2020-nfl-cba-discussion-thread/589923/25 "2011-07-26T00:42:42Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Apparently the opt-out clauses come with some pretty stringent triggers which will serve to keep both parties honest, so I’m fine with that. Do you have a cite? Everything I’ve read says there’s no opt-out clause for either side. The agreement runs through the 2021 draft. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-2020-nfl-cba-discussion-thread/589923/26 "2011-07-26T00:59:20Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > Do you have a cite? Everything I’ve read says there’s no opt-out clause for either side. The agreement runs through the 2021 draft. Peter King was reporting that the players wanted one, and I read elsewhere that the owners had one in. The proposed conditions were pretty stringent. Even better that there isn’t one. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-2020-nfl-cba-discussion-thread/589923/27 "2011-07-26T02:55:48Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Agreed. But tackling has been declining for so long in favor of offensive production that good defenses will be even more impressive. As a Steelers fan, it works for me. > > Also agreed. I’m curious about whether the owners will want to play chicken with that. According to Peter King (as referenced above): > > Everybody loses in that deal, including the fans. Preseason ball isn’t very good, but it gives the management a chance to evaluate the talent under game conditions. Two fewer preseason games means that the players will certainly be somewhat inferior under the best of circumstances. Add to that the increased possibility of injury and the games are diminished. And for what? Two more games that won’t earn notably more money than preseason games? Big mistake. The owners will get burned if they try this, I believe. > > Apparently the opt-out clauses come with some pretty stringent triggers which will serve to keep both parties honest, so I’m fine with that. > > The word is that the rookies took a BIG hit. I’m perfectly OK with that, because as you said they haven’t done a damn thing but be drafted yet. So you are suggesting less games will cause more injuries .The players are against adding more games because they say more games will cause more injuries. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-2020-nfl-cba-discussion-thread/589923/28 "2011-07-26T03:06:28Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Peter King was reporting that the players wanted one, and I read elsewhere that the owners had one in. The proposed conditions were pretty stringent. > > Even better that there isn’t one. Okay. I just thought I had missed something. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-2020-nfl-cba-discussion-thread/589923/29 "2011-08-02T14:32:17Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > I suppose this could constitute snark, but the bottom line is that Al Davis has been pissed at the NFL for 45 years, since he was Commissioner of the AFL and thought that the AFL could make the NFL come to them. He certainly harbored a grudge against Pete Rozelle. His manipulations with Oakland and LA involved a threatened antitrust lawsuit and he testified on behalf of the USFL during their big lawsuit against the NFL in the 1980s. I honestly believe that he would spend all of his money to kill the NFL out of spite if he could do it. John Clayton reported this in his mailbag column today: [The Philadelphia Eagles are winning free agency while the San Francicso 49ers move backward - ESPN](http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6821105/the-philadelphia-eagles-winning-free-agency-san-francicso-49ers-move-backward) > [@](#): > > \*\*Q: The owners voted 31-0 in favor of the new CBA deal, with Al Davis abstaining. We are all familiar with Al’s dislike of authority, along with his years of fighting with the NFL, but why would he not vote yes? What is it he sees that none of the other owners see? > > Cody in Austin, Texas\*\* > > A: Remember, Al Davis is a former coach, and he was a very good coach. He abstained because he thought coaches took too hard of a hit in the new CBA. There are no two-a-days allowed, and coaches have a limited number of padded practices during training camp and the season. The offseason programs have been shortened to the point players don’t have a show up until May 1. Davis doesn’t like seeing things dictated to coaches, so he held out. That seems awfully high minded to me. I am quite sure that Davis feels this way and I trust Clayton’s reporting on the comments, but I suspect that Davis would have been petulant about this and found a different angle to abstain about had this one not cropped up. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-2020-nfl-cba-discussion-thread/589923.md?page=1)