 and the NFL PA looks like it's about to come to an agreement. Now, it's been ratified at this point by the owners. Right, not unanimously according to Adam Schefter, but still it passed. And the players have until tomorrow to ratify it. And what it essentially is, is two more playoff teams, seven playoff teams at conference, only one team with a buy. And the first playoff weekend would be three wild card games on Saturday, three wild card games on Sunday. And it also would entail a 17 game season and three exhibition or preseason, whatever you'd like to call it. I call it garbage, but I mean, I don't have a terrible problem with it. If it was in place this year, Don, what the Rams would make it? Rams would make it in the NFC and eight and eight stealer team would have made it in the AFC. And, you know, what I said, the cost is true. People's heads don't explode about football, but here's the one thing I don't get. So with a 17 game season, you're gonna play more home games or more road game certaincies. So your nearest competition might have an advantage or this we haven't seen anywhere. And I wonder if this is the case, every single team would play a game in London or Mexico City. That's what I think is gonna end up happening. Maybe not right away, but I do think you're seeing such an appetite for games in London and Mexico City. Can you create that 17 times during the course of the year so that now everybody has to play at least one? Now, where could they play? Can you put a game in Toronto? I guess you could do that, although that's not really a disadvantage the way having to go into London. Maybe they have a full slate in London. Well, yeah, you know, and I think that's where the television package would come from. Because you can create another network. Because as you said, the Saturday and the Sunday would be a triple header. Yep. You can create another network to come in to take one of those three games. There's be a one o'clock, a 430 and an 830. Or you could give ESPN another playoff game. You could. And turn Monday night football into ABC. But you would ask for more money from ESPN. You know, that's probably what you would do. So either create another network or make a network pay more money. What you can also do, and I heard this back a few years ago, when some of those London games were the 930 games, remember the 930 in the morning? Where if you did that every week, every Sunday, then you would have a 930, a one, a four. You know, the 430s in the night game, you would create a quadruple header every single Sunday. And maybe you get a network or maybe the 930 London games, which would be every week, would be an Amazon or Facebook, or you could maybe sell those as the streaming ones. People might not freak out as much because it's a 930 game. What you're doing is you're creating another television package. It's gonna just print money for the NFL. Now, I don't know if the players are gonna ratify this, but if they do, then stop complaining about injuries and stuff like that because you're just taking the extra money. So if they do play the 17 game season, their cut of the pie will be 48 and a half percent. The owners will get 51 and a half percent. And that's worth billions of dollars over the life of a 10-year year. Which I don't understand why players care because most of them aren't gonna play 10 years anyway. They're not gonna see the majority of that, but you can't talk about injuries anymore. You can't talk about how you're afraid of head injuries and the owners can't either. If you're gonna expand the 17 game, and you can say, well, they were playing an extra, a pre-season game. Those games that you never even play and they're not, it's such a scene-hitting. I know, and I do think there's something to that, especially the length they've gone to change the rules to protect the players. But how much more is one game? Because sometimes you end up playing one more game than other teams. If you're the wild card team. Right. When the Giants won those Super Bowls, they had to play the four playoff games, counting the Super Bowls, opposed to some teams only playing three. So sometimes you end up playing the extra game anyway. If it adds some revenue, and then one less pre-season game. Yeah, but now if you play 17 games, you'd be playing that extra wild card game in the 17 game. No, you're right. Listen, it's a lot. It certainly is a lot. It's certainly more than when we had it. Remember, we used to have 10 games, then 12 games, then 14 games, then 16 games. It's the way things are going. And the one less pre-season game really doesn't matter because most of the starters always mail in the last pre-season game. So the second pre-season game would be a big deal. So listen, I guess the NFL could turn around and say, take a look at what's been happening with two a days being gone. Training camps aren't nearly as long. Training with pads don't happen as long and as often as it did back in the day. So for the extra money you're gonna get, hey, how important is it to the players? Right, if you really don't wanna play the extra game, that means you're gonna have to turn down a significant amount of money. How are they willing to do that? And also part of it is they could be offering lifetime health care, which is a big deal to NFL players. So there are things there and there's gonna be less practices with pads, which is gonna just make the first four weeks of the season a joke, more of a joke anyway. That's true. There's a lot of things there. And one of the things that they're requesting and they might get is less disciplinary power by Roger Goodell, where he can't be judging jury. Well, those are things they want. And you're gonna have to give something for that, right? But I will tell you this though, if I'm the players, I have to just wonder just a little bit, why are the owners so anxious to ratify this? Now you said it wasn't unanimous, but still, that could be the old oaky-doke by then on, we don't love it that much. Why are they so desperate to get this done? Their TV deal's not even up for another couple of years. Well, maybe they just want to get the ball rolling to give that confidence that by the time you get to where these television networks are expiring, that that's even more money that you can get. Absolutely. And this would also mean labor peace since that last strike season. 2011. So it's a long, no, that was just a Hall of Fame game. Right, just a Hall of Fame game. But a regular season game was like 86, I think, or 87? No, you're going, yeah, you're going back to 87. That's the last time that any regular season games were affected. So at the end of this contract, that would have meant you'd have over 43 years of labor peace. I mean, that's valuable to television networks. They know that for 10 years, they could promote this and they can make this work. No, I just think getting your ducks in a row as quickly as you can is a good thing. I find it curious that it wasn't unanimous, so there are some owners that aren't in favor of this. Now, it could be Jerry Jones who voted against it because he's steadfast on an 18-game schedule. So let's not sit there and say any owners that voted against this were thinking for the players. They might have been thinking, I want an 18-game schedule. I want more teams of the players. We don't know why they voted against it, but the majority, they got what they needed. And then we'll see over the next couple of days whether the players are out of fight. I would assume they would. And this is probably what we're looking at, Peter, for the upcoming future. It's just, this is silly and just sort of like nerdy and spazzy of me. I just hate the numbers. I hate 17 games. I hate seven playoff teams on each side. I just, which is so weird. It just feels so greedy. It's odd, no? Well, I mean, I'm not gonna knock you for feeling that way, but anybody that romanticizes sports into not being a huge business, they're just missing the point. They're looking to maximize their dollars. Well, think about this. In 1976, the 1976 season was the last year of the 14-game schedule. So in 77, when they expanded in 76, in 77, they went to the 16-game schedule. So how many years is that? That's 43 and 43. So in 43 years was the last time they expanded the schedule. So it's not like it's happened all that often. They're at a disadvantage, Peter, because of the fact that they know if they can add 20 games. Remember, the USFL schedule was 18 games. That would just be an unbelievable amount of money that they can get. It's just that obviously the damage to the player sometimes is gonna make them wanna vote against it. But really, is it that crazy when you look at the 81-game schedules in hockey and basketball and the 162 games in baseball? Yeah, but the extra 60 minutes of that kind of pounding, that means a lot. I mean, we've already dealt with head injuries over and over and over again. But we're also gonna have to live with something here, and that is what's happening in basketball with the maintenance days, with what's the exact phrase again, the... Load management. Load management. You're gonna get that in the NFL now. You might get it. Maybe this deal will be another week of a buy, and then you could push the Super Bowl, the present's weekend. Which is also what everybody's been talking about anyway. Why are they in such a rush to play the Super Bowl? They can own February. Totally true. So if you added another buy, Peter, how taxing would it actually be on these players if they're able to get the days off? And we have a drop appropriate for it. Finally, my double buy drop would come to make sense. Yeah, or we'd have to retire at one of the two. Now, people are saying how it affects the records. I guess it could. Records are not the same. The records are not the same in baseball. And by the way, the records are already messed up. Let's be real. All the passing records, you basically can no longer compare to anything pre-2000. And we made the adjustment in 77 when we added two games, right, Peter? Of course, they've been different forever. My question is this. Can you, to me, I guess it's more of a statement. I don't mind going to 17 or 18 games if I'm the players, if you get the lifetime health care. If you get the lifetime health care, to me that feels like an actually somewhat fair trade-off. But this is what I'm at with. This is what the owners would probably ask the players. We'll develop the plan, but you're gonna have to take some of your money to put into that in order to have that. So then it becomes an argument how much of a percentage should the owners pay for that? How much should the players pay for that? But yet the extra revenue should be put into a pot to take care of the players after they retire and take care of all those players like Earl Campbell who's in a wheelchair for the sacrifices that he gave the Houston Oilers when he played. It is amazing what you pay for lifetime health care. I mean, baseball has a great health care for once you're retired, but you have to pay like $30,000, $40,000 a year for it. So it's not free. Now, I wonder if this means that they're gonna pick it up for the rest of these players' lives? All right, we'll take some.