Latest CBA Update

[Mr. Scot]

 

[King K. Rhule]

yeah the playoff thing sucks, but Ill live with it because at the end of the day, I want nothing more than the Panthers winning the Superbowl. Every teams odds increase with this new format.

[1of10Charnatives]

2 minutes ago, King K. Rhule said:

yeah the playoff thing sucks, but Ill live with it because at the end of the day, I want nothing more than the Panthers winning the Superbowl. Every teams odds increase with this new format.

If more teams are in the playoffs, then any one team's odds of making the playoffs go up. Their odds of winning the super bowl with additional teams in however, go down.

For comparison, the odds of any one college basketball team winning the national championship no matter how good are small, because they have to win 6 (hypothetically potentially even 7) games to do it.

[MHS831]

I do not think any team should get a bye-the advantage is getting to play the #8 seed (if they go with 16) in the first round at home.  A bye gives the best team a "win" and a week of rest.  I think home field and the easiest first round opponent is enough of an advantage.

Just my thinking

[Waldo]

They need to expand the roster by 5 and keep the 5 inactives. I would be more caring about the playoffs but I don't think that is a problem we have to deal with anytime soon. 

[1of10Charnatives]

1 minute ago, MHS831 said:

I do not think any team should win a bye-the advantage is getting to play the #8 seed (if they go with 16) in the first round at home.  A bye gives the best team a "win" and a week of rest.  I think home field and the easiest first round opponent is enough of an advantage.

Just my thinking

I think the last time I saw somebody run the numbers, the math showed bye teams win over 70% of their first playoff games. which IIRC is something like 10% MORE of a mathematical advantage than regular season home field. As currently constructed the bye is an overwhelming advantage for what amounts to typically a single win or two or a tie breaker advantage over other division winners. It's too much advantage for too little difference in performance most of the time.

[1of10Charnatives]

3 minutes ago, Waldo said:

They need to expand the roster by 5 and keep the 5 inactives. I would be more caring about the playoffs but I don't think that is a problem we have to deal with anytime soon. 

I've never understood why NFL owners are willing to pay 5 guys NFL minimum salaries that can't wear a jersey on game day. Also I think owners would be fine with expanding rosters since what they're negotiating is the piece of the pie all players combined get, but the existing players union might not be super keen on adding five roster spots if they don't think it materially reduces the burden on starters who play the majority of reps if not injured anyway. They may view that as watering down their slice of the pie for marginal return. Hard to say.

[Waldo]

Just now, 1of10Charnatives said:

I've never understood why NFL owners are willing to pay 5 guys NFL minimum salaries that can't wear a jersey on game day. Also I think owners would be fine with expanding rosters since what they're negotiating is the piece of the pie all players combined get, but the existing players union might not be super keen on adding five roster spots if they don't think it materially reduces the burden on starters who play the majority of reps if not injured anyway. They may view that as watering down their slice of the pie for marginal return. Hard to say.

I agree with you on why both sides wouldn't do it. If they add another game to the year and keep up the idiotic Thursday night games, they really should. Football is a game where some guys just are not ready or just can't go but are not to the IR point. There is the whole strategy of the 5 inactives announced right before the game but I don't find it very entertaining to watch a game where injuries kill the competitiveness because they don't have the roster spots and the players aren't hurt enough for IR. The last 5 guys on any roster aren't costing much, I don't know why they are so stuck to those specific numbers. 

[heelsnum1]

4 hours ago, King K. Rhule said:

yeah the playoff thing sucks, but Ill live with it because at the end of the day, I want nothing more than the Panthers winning the Superbowl. Every teams odds increase with this new format.

Exactly 3.125% of the teams in the league win the Super Bowl every year (1 of 32).  The odds aren't changing because of extra teams in the playoffs.  You could however argue that the odds for the best team to NOT win have increased.

[trueblade]

Sounds like the owners are ready to move forward. Balls in the players court.

 

[stbugs]

14 minutes ago, heelsnum1 said:

Exactly 3.125% of the teams in the league win the Super Bowl every year (1 of 32).  The odds aren't changing because of extra teams in the playoffs.  You could however argue that the odds for the best team to NOT win have increased.

You could argue that with only one team getting a bye that the odds for the best team to win increased. The best team would have the best conference record. Since over 70% of SB champions have had a bye, that’s important and now only the best team gets it. This change would absolutely be a bigger advantage for the 1 seed.