- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,090
- Liked Posts:
- 9,039
- Location:
- Colorado
It should just be one big tournament.
***OFFICIAL*** NFL 2020 Season News Thread (COVID-19 Edition)
- Thread starter Penny Traitor
- Start date
Black Rainbow
ChatGPT Created Account
- Joined:
- Apr 19, 2014
- Posts:
- 17,454
- Liked Posts:
- 8,145
Dude, that would be effing awesome.
Like a double loss elimination tournament. Lose twice, pack it up, seasons over....lol. Bears woulda been done week 5 last year.
Or like World Cup. Round robin everyone in your division for one game. Top two in every division is in the single elimination tourney.
Last edited:
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,090
- Liked Posts:
- 9,039
- Location:
- Colorado
Yes, let them play every two weeks. The season is 22 weeks with the Super Bowl, right? Plenty of spacing for testing/quarantining/etc.
Black Rainbow
ChatGPT Created Account
- Joined:
- Apr 19, 2014
- Posts:
- 17,454
- Liked Posts:
- 8,145
Just for the hell of it, I took a preliminary look. The NFL is setup just like World Cup. 32 teams, 8 groups with 4 teams.
You absolutely could do a round robin, bottom 2 teams in each division is out. Single elimination tournament with 16 teams.
The only issue is that the World Cup is played on neutral ground except the possibility that one team is the host country and always has home field. As far as the NFL, each team plays three games against division rivals, so two of the teams in each division would have 2 home games and two teams would only have 1 home game. (We could fix that though. Maybe play one game neutral, one game home, one game away. ) For example, for one game, Chicago could play Detroit in Lambeau.
Right now, I believe the regular season is 256 games total without the playoffs. This tourney idea would only be 64. And when it's all said an done, no team could have played more than 7 total games.
Perfect for a shortened season in a pandemic.
You absolutely could do a round robin, bottom 2 teams in each division is out. Single elimination tournament with 16 teams.
The only issue is that the World Cup is played on neutral ground except the possibility that one team is the host country and always has home field. As far as the NFL, each team plays three games against division rivals, so two of the teams in each division would have 2 home games and two teams would only have 1 home game. (We could fix that though. Maybe play one game neutral, one game home, one game away. ) For example, for one game, Chicago could play Detroit in Lambeau.
Right now, I believe the regular season is 256 games total without the playoffs. This tourney idea would only be 64. And when it's all said an done, no team could have played more than 7 total games.
Perfect for a shortened season in a pandemic.
Last edited:
- Joined:
- Aug 31, 2014
- Posts:
- 15,352
- Liked Posts:
- 10,507
- Location:
- Socialist Republic of California
My favorite teams
Totally off topic but these dudes where in those comments and they deserve some props. Same stuff my daughter used to do.
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,090
- Liked Posts:
- 9,039
- Location:
- Colorado
Makes sense to me. Love it.
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,244
- Liked Posts:
- 17,121
- Location:
- Chicago
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 19,006
- Liked Posts:
- 12,369
Most of this year has sucked. Why stop now
dag54
Member
- Joined:
- Apr 30, 2014
- Posts:
- 100
- Liked Posts:
- 45
NFL expected to respond to NFLPA economic proposal in coming days
The NFL and NFLPA conducted a conference call Monday centered around working through economic issues brought on by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport and NFL Network's Tom Pelissero reported.
The NFL and NFLPA conducted a conference call Monday centered around working through economic issues brought on by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport and NFL Network's Tom Pelissero reported.
After news emerged last Tuesday that the NFL proposed holding 35% of player salaries in escrow, the NFLPA sent an economic counterproposal to the league on Sunday. Rapoport and Pelissero reported that the league is expected to respond to the counterproposal in the coming days.
Throughout the month, a number of protocols have been issued in an attempt to keep players and coaches advised as dynamics continue to change. The NFL recently released protocols addressing procedures teams must adhere to during training camp and preseason, as well as on game-day during the regular season.
Rapoport and Pelissero reported that another call, which will focus on health and safety issues, is scheduled for Tuesday. Among the issues being addressed include preseason, opt-outs and daily testing.
As things continue to evolve, there have been a number of instances of players and coaches voicing their concerns over playing amid the pandemic. Rapoport and Pelissero added that several coaches and GMs are frustrated with the lack of answers and don't think they have enough time to learn and get used to the protocols and procedures.
The NFLPA board voted earlier this month to recommend no preseason games but a decision has yet to be made. Training camp is still set to begin on time July 28.
dag54
Member
- Joined:
- Apr 30, 2014
- Posts:
- 100
- Liked Posts:
- 45
- Joined:
- Mar 1, 2015
- Posts:
- 33,072
- Liked Posts:
- 39,675
City of Philadelphia is not allowing fans at Eagles games this year.
sports.yahoo.com
Philadelphia backtracks on fan ban for Eagles games at Lincoln Financial Field
The city put a large event ban in place on Tuesday, but gave stadiums an exception to hold games.
- Joined:
- Aug 29, 2012
- Posts:
- 4,220
- Liked Posts:
- 2,669
- Location:
- Fort Myers, FL
The issue of playing at neutral sites is moot if there are no fans.
Surely there will be some fans though, so home games will need to be given based on some earned stat...points scored; differential; SOS worked in; or perhaps some crazy NCAA type formula. Interesting times for sports these days.
dag54
Member
- Joined:
- Apr 30, 2014
- Posts:
- 100
- Liked Posts:
- 45
Players who test positive for COVID-19 will be paid - ProFootballTalk
Yes, the NFL and NFL Players Association already have reached an agreement regarding the procedures for dealing with players who test positive for COVID-19. Some have reported that the NFL and NFLPA are haggling over whether players with COVID-19 will be paid.Per a league source, the players on...
Yes, the NFL and NFL Players Association already have reached an agreement regarding the procedures for dealing with players who test positive for COVID-19.
Per a league source, the league intends to change the injured reserve rules to create a COVID-19 classification. Players who test positive will be placed on the COVID-19 list for three weeks, creating a roster spot that would then be filled with a player who is negative for the virus.
The players on the COVID-19 list would be paid their normal salaries.
It’s unclear what will happen if a player on the COVID-19 list can’t return after three weeks, at which time he will be eligible to return to practice. He must be returned to the active roster within three weeks after that, or he will revert to IR (absent an injury settlement).
The goal will be to keep the roster strong and to avoid shutting players down for the full season. The broader objective will be to keep the league from collapsing if teams suffer outbreaks that shut them down.
The procedures haven’t been finalized. The league’s owners, who are due to meet tomorrow, quite possibly will vote on the measure then.
Black Rainbow
ChatGPT Created Account
- Joined:
- Apr 19, 2014
- Posts:
- 17,454
- Liked Posts:
- 8,145
72 NFL players test positive for COVID-19
Seems like a running tally, not all recent. Just goes to show how hard it will be to contain this with such huge rosters and personnel involved.
If I'm not a total dimwit, I believe this is 4% of the players.
Seems like a running tally, not all recent. Just goes to show how hard it will be to contain this with such huge rosters and personnel involved.
If I'm not a total dimwit, I believe this is 4% of the players.
- Joined:
- Aug 10, 2013
- Posts:
- 33,976
- Liked Posts:
- 34,031
- Location:
- Cumming
We were told today that college football has a small chance of starting in January but fall football is all but guaranteed of not happening. That's 4 SEC schools, 2 ACC schools and a DIV2 school.
dag54
Member
- Joined:
- Apr 30, 2014
- Posts:
- 100
- Liked Posts:
- 45
BornAnAngryBearsFan
TF you lookin' at?!?!
- Joined:
- Dec 26, 2013
- Posts:
- 1,736
- Liked Posts:
- 1,556
- Location:
- Pearl City, Hawaii
And so it begins... I fully expect a few big name players to opt out by late August. Per article on NFL's site Story here.
mattb78
My threads are FTO !
- Joined:
- Sep 18, 2012
- Posts:
- 3,894
- Liked Posts:
- 4,307
- Location:
- Orlando
I think its a pretty good way to handle it. For those that don't want the risk, allow them to opt out of the season. There will be plenty of players that either want the money or want the opportunity and they will play.
Fair move by the NFL. I honestly don't think alot of big name players are going to drop out. This virus is not very dangerous to the people in the age range of NFL players. But at least it gives everyone the opportunity if they don't feel comfortable.
The largest concern for many players will probably be passing it on to someone in their family (mother, grandma) but with such great access to testing above what the public has I think that will alleviate the concern for most players.
Fair move by the NFL. I honestly don't think alot of big name players are going to drop out. This virus is not very dangerous to the people in the age range of NFL players. But at least it gives everyone the opportunity if they don't feel comfortable.
The largest concern for many players will probably be passing it on to someone in their family (mother, grandma) but with such great access to testing above what the public has I think that will alleviate the concern for most players.
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,244
- Liked Posts:
- 17,121
- Location:
- Chicago
NFL’s opt-out offer carries a renegotiation loophole
PFT has obtained the full contents of the NFL’s most recent proposal to the NFL Players Association, which means that the weekend will feature a series of blurbs regarding various aspects of the league’s position.
First up, one of the most intriguing aspects of pro football in a pandemic: The ability of players to choose not to play.
The deadline for making an all-or-nothing decision arrives on August 1, at 5:00 p.m. ET. Written notice “must be received” by the team before that moment; once notice is received as to a given player, the opt out becomes irrevocable. Thus, unlike a holdout (which can end at any time), the player who opts out cannot play at all in 2020.
A player who opts out will have his contract toll for a full year. He will not receive his base salary or any other payments scheduled to be earned after the date of the opt out, and he will not earn a benefit credit or an accrued season. In 2021, his contract will be reinstated. If he “timely reports for all required activities” in 2021, the opt out will not become a breach of his 2020 contract, which “will not subject him to discipline or forfeiture, will not void any bonuses or guarantees or have any other adverse consequences beyond those set forth herein.”
That’s an important provision. The player who opts out in 2020 can’t hold out or otherwise breach his contract in 2021; if he does, his opt out becomes a breach of his contract, after the fact.
The player who opts out will receive a $150,000 stipend for 2020 — minus any amounts already received by the player in 2020. The balance (up to $150,000) would be treated as an advance on the player’s 2021 base salary. (This implies that players not under contract for 2021 would not be eligible for the stipend.)
Here’s the most intriguing aspect of the opt-out proposal: The NFL’s offer states that “[n]o club may renegotiate a contract with any player who has given notice of his intention to opt out.” As a practical matter, this gives a player until August 1 to use the threat of a potential opt out as leverage to get a new deal.
The message from agent to team would go like this: “My client wants to play this year, but he’s got serious reservations about the league’s safety procedures, and he is concerned about catching the virus and spreading it to his family. But he’d be willing to assume the enhanced risk of playing this year if he were to get a new contract.”
For players who already have made their displeasure with their contract known, like Vikings running back Dalvin Cook, it potentially becomes the ultimate all-in move. If he opts out, he’s done for the year. And while he’d still be subject to the terms of his 2020 contract in 2021, the Vikings wouldn’t have him on the team in 2020. Would the threat of an opt out be enough to get them to pay Cook?
One last point on the opt out: It’s irrevocable both to the player’s team and as to any other team. Although he can be traded or released after opting out, the player cannot play for any team in 2020, once notice to opt out is received.
Again, these terms come only from the NFL’s latest offer. The union may push for, and secure, a later opt-out date or the conditional ability to return by a specific date later in the year or more money for 2020 or other terms not currently in the offer. For now, however, it’s clear that the league is willing to let a player choose to not play, subject to a broader agreement on the terms and conditions for the 2020 season.
For those counting the days....
PFT has obtained the full contents of the NFL’s most recent proposal to the NFL Players Association, which means that the weekend will feature a series of blurbs regarding various aspects of the league’s position.
First up, one of the most intriguing aspects of pro football in a pandemic: The ability of players to choose not to play.
The deadline for making an all-or-nothing decision arrives on August 1, at 5:00 p.m. ET. Written notice “must be received” by the team before that moment; once notice is received as to a given player, the opt out becomes irrevocable. Thus, unlike a holdout (which can end at any time), the player who opts out cannot play at all in 2020.
A player who opts out will have his contract toll for a full year. He will not receive his base salary or any other payments scheduled to be earned after the date of the opt out, and he will not earn a benefit credit or an accrued season. In 2021, his contract will be reinstated. If he “timely reports for all required activities” in 2021, the opt out will not become a breach of his 2020 contract, which “will not subject him to discipline or forfeiture, will not void any bonuses or guarantees or have any other adverse consequences beyond those set forth herein.”
That’s an important provision. The player who opts out in 2020 can’t hold out or otherwise breach his contract in 2021; if he does, his opt out becomes a breach of his contract, after the fact.
The player who opts out will receive a $150,000 stipend for 2020 — minus any amounts already received by the player in 2020. The balance (up to $150,000) would be treated as an advance on the player’s 2021 base salary. (This implies that players not under contract for 2021 would not be eligible for the stipend.)
Here’s the most intriguing aspect of the opt-out proposal: The NFL’s offer states that “[n]o club may renegotiate a contract with any player who has given notice of his intention to opt out.” As a practical matter, this gives a player until August 1 to use the threat of a potential opt out as leverage to get a new deal.
The message from agent to team would go like this: “My client wants to play this year, but he’s got serious reservations about the league’s safety procedures, and he is concerned about catching the virus and spreading it to his family. But he’d be willing to assume the enhanced risk of playing this year if he were to get a new contract.”
For players who already have made their displeasure with their contract known, like Vikings running back Dalvin Cook, it potentially becomes the ultimate all-in move. If he opts out, he’s done for the year. And while he’d still be subject to the terms of his 2020 contract in 2021, the Vikings wouldn’t have him on the team in 2020. Would the threat of an opt out be enough to get them to pay Cook?
One last point on the opt out: It’s irrevocable both to the player’s team and as to any other team. Although he can be traded or released after opting out, the player cannot play for any team in 2020, once notice to opt out is received.
Again, these terms come only from the NFL’s latest offer. The union may push for, and secure, a later opt-out date or the conditional ability to return by a specific date later in the year or more money for 2020 or other terms not currently in the offer. For now, however, it’s clear that the league is willing to let a player choose to not play, subject to a broader agreement on the terms and conditions for the 2020 season.
For those counting the days....
- Joined:
- Jan 11, 2014
- Posts:
- 6,671
- Liked Posts:
- 4,049
- Location:
- Chicago
It really should be a lost year. It has been handled HORRIBLY. If it was taken care of (masks, isolation) we could have this year. It's not just sickness and death, which should be enough, it's LONG-TERM damage. If I was a pro, no WAY I'd play. The damage to your lungs, muscles, brain...we have no idea how bad it will get.
