The NFL and NFLPA reps are reportedly scheduled to meet today in Indianapolis to discuss the proposed CBA, and the NFLPA is "going to get a chance to go to the NFL and see if there's maybe one or two more things they can squeeze out of them (to) see if they can sweeten the deal," according to NFL Network's Ian Rapoport. The two sides are "going to get in a room, talk about some of the maybe differences" they have. Last week, the NFL "approved this proposal," while the Exec Council "did not." It also is worth noting that the NFLPA "clarified some things" yesterday, as they do "not need a two-thirds majority from the NFLPA reps to pass it on to the majority of players." They "just need a simple majority to allow the players in all to vote for this proposed CBA" ("NFL Total Access," NFL Network, 2/24). ESPN's Adam Schefter said, "What the players object to, it's not the money, it's not the splits, it's not any of the revenue sharing. It is the 17-game regular season schedule." Schefter added, "When you have a league that has preached the merits of health and safety and tried to say it's looking out for player benefits, then how can you justify 17 games in the regular season schedule?" If owners can "convince the players why it is (a good idea), then maybe they'll get that deal done and have labor peace through 2029." If they cannot, then a "little bit of chaos will ensue and this is an issue that will go on and on for over the next year" ("Get Up," ESPN, 2/25).
PAY UP: ESPN's Kevin Negandhi cited sources as saying that there are "currently three factions of player reps when it comes to the CBA vote" -- those who "do not want 17 regular season games, those who will accept it with tweaks to the deal and those who will accept it as-is." The groups are "expected to discuss the potential deal more this week when they meet up at the NFL Combine." ESPN's Damien Woody said there are "classes when you talk about the player ranks," and the upper class -- 49ers CB Richard Sherman, Texans DE J.J. Watt -- they look at a 17-game schedule and "they're saying, 'No way. We're already limping towards the end of a season for a 16-game season and now you want to tack on a 17th game?'" That is "a lot to ask for those types of guys and then you have the middle, lower-tier guys looking at this whole proposal saying, 'You're cutting back on practice time, you're cutting back on training camp, you're cutting back on preseason games, opportunities for me to develop and try to make this roster? If you're going to do all that, I want the money now'" ("SportsCenter," ESPN, 2/24).
STRIKE RISK? ESPN's Emmanuel Acho said there is "going to be a strike because of the 17-game season." The 17-game season is "huge for management, huge for the NFL." Acho: "When you think about TV dollars, we're talking billions of dollars will come in with that 17th game. ... Players have started to wise up. They're like, 'Wait a second, you want us to play another game where the most we can garner is likely $250,000, and y'all are about to get billions? Something don't add up.'" He added, "The players are looking around and saying, 'It's too much money being distributed amongst these owners for us to not be getting a bigger share of the pie. A strike nor a lockout is in anybody's best interest." ESPN's Mike Golic Sr. in response to the idea of a players' strike said, "I don't think it's getting that far, by any stretch of the imagination ... (but) if it does, I also don't think in any way, shape or form will it be a players' strike during the season as opposed to a lockout when the CBA ends after the season." It makes "zero sense for the players to strike," as they will "accomplish nothing but lose money" ("Golic & Wingo," ESPN Radio, 2/25).
