Bedard: Players should turn this CBA down and drive harder bargain; 1 bye team is bad for NFL

The drumbeat started earlier this week. It grows louder by the day, seemingly the hour.

The new NFL collective bargaining proposal is great!

Transformative!

Look at the new money for the players! All the benefits!

What a load of malarkey.

I'll let you in on a little secret that's not all that secret: there are many influential members of the media who like their Park Plaza sources, and they also like the idea of the NFL having uninterrupted labor peace. The NFL is their business so, in many ways, they are basically an extension of the league's ownership.

What's good for the NFL, especially those employed by the league and TV rights holders, is good for them and their employers.

And then there are other media members with no skin in the game and just want to shoot you straight.

Up to you who you should listen to.

I'll tell you this: The players should reject this proposal. They should hold out for much, much more.

Why? Here are five reasons.

No. 1: The rush itself

The owners being behind this proposal and pushing it hard out of nowhere with an attached deadline of next week ("Since the clubs and players need to have a system in place and know the rules that they will operate under by next week, the membership also approved moving forward under the final year of the 2011 CBA if the players decide not to approve the negotiated terms.") should tell you a lot.

Sure, owners and the NFLPA management came to this agreement, but finishing the deal and then pushing it through an ownership vote in about a day was the owners' side. If anyone puts a deadline on something that doesn't need one — what's wrong with an agreement in two or three weeks? — it tells you the deal is bad for one side and they're trying to cram it down your throats with a loaded gun to your head.

There are several teams, especially the Patriots, that need a new CBA in place by the start of free agency so they are better able to keep (or move on from) their franchise stars. The owners need this more than the players. If there is no new CBA, it becomes much more difficult for the Patriots and Saints to re-sign Tom Brady and Drew Brees, respectively, among others. The players should feed on that.

Plus, the NFL needs a new agreement for the new TV deals, and Roger Goodell needs a win that will get him closer to his goal of $25 billion in revenue from what will undoubtedly be the last CBA of his career as commissioner.

Ramming this agreement through the ownership and then pushing it on the players absolutely smells of Jerry Jones and others saying, "This is what we want, it's the best for us and those players are going to approve it or else."

That should be a huge stop sign for the players.

No. 2: NFL isn't offering up enough money

One of the NFL's big selling points — passed on by their lackeys at the NFLPA who want to get paid and have an agreement in place — is how the players' share of the revenue would go from 48 percent to 48.5 percent if there are 17 games. "Projected increase of $5 billion in player revenue over 10 years!"

Since when do NFL owners give away any money? They do it when they know they're making ungodly sums more than the players and are doing this as a little tip so they just glance and sign the deal.

The owners make so much more money off of local revenues (60 percent of local media and advertising deals go to the owners in the last CBA, with 100 percent of "off-site" places like Patriot Place going to the Patriots' owners) that half a percent is like change in your couch.

Did you know that the players used to get 60 percent of gross revenues (Gene Upshaw would not retreat from that) ... and the owners still got rich? Now the players get less than half and DeMaurice Smith thinks the players should be happy with that.

Upshaw has been rolling over in his grave for 10 years.

No. 3: No provision for guaranteed contracts.

Previously, there was one non-starter on each side of these negotiations: the owners wouldn't entertain guaranteed contracts for all players, and the players wouldn't entertain a longer season.

Now, the NFL owners want a longer regular season and a longer postseason, and the players are supposed to take that because of a half percent raise?

If the NFL owners want more games, then the owners need to give on guaranteed salaries. If baseball and basketball players get them routinely, it's long overdue for these football warriors to get them.

It's ludicrous that NFL players could be playing in 2030 if this agreement goes through and about 95 percent of the players wouldn't have guaranteed contracts.

No. 4: No second bye week in expanded schedule.

First of all, it should be insulting to all players, especially the influential ones who make bank, that the extra game paycheck has a ceiling of $250,000 ... is that a joke?

And the NFL players should insist on another bye week for another game and round of playoffs. Do they think one less preseason game is actually helpful for veterans? The Bruins just had two long vacations in the span of about two months. The Celtics are in the midst of nine days off along with other long breaks. The NFL should have another bye week. If the owners don't want it, it's going to cost them.

No. 5: I hate the idea of only one team getting a bye.

OK, so this is personal, but it's something I've long believed. I would actually rather see the playoff field expanded by two teams in each conference to give us eight, so we just have a real playoff system with all the teams playing an equal amount of games. If you're going to let in one more crappy team, might as well make it two. It's not going to make that much of a difference.

And it will be much fairer.

If one team gets a bye, then you're basically giving a huge advantage to one team, largely, based on luck — because either they play in a weaker division and/or the NFL's schedule called for them to play the two weakest divisions.

For example, based on last season, the Patriots will have the hardest schedule in the league because of their first-place finish and the fact that the AFC East faces the divisions of the two Super Bowl teams (AFC West, NFC West).

New England will have to fend off, among others, the Ravens ... who have the easiest schedule because they face the crapbag NFC East and AFC South.

In 2019, the Ravens got the No. 1 seed playing the 24th-ranked schedule. The Chiefs, who would've played opening weekend under the current proposal, had the 13th.

How is any of that at all fair?

With two teams getting a bye, the only advantage among the top two teams (usually there's a fairly clear delineation there) is one home game. Under the proposed deal, the Ravens would get the lone bye and have to win two home games to go to the Super Bowl. The Patriots would have to win three games.

And don't tell me that will get the top teams to play harder and longer. Please, it's already predetermined by the schedule who the teams are given before the season.