As i read the article and section what it says, as it pertains to the subject at hand. That the NFLPA would need to show that the league adding playoff teams, would significantly affect the terms and conditions of their employment.

It doesn't say that any change to the bylaws or nfl constitution has to go through the PA. Only if the change would significantly affect the terms.

And I don't see how they would establish significant change when the compensation and structure is already set.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 

92 additional players performing in the postseason would not constitute a significant change? And the other teams players having to perform in additional games as well because of the add.

But yet changing the cutdown days would be a significant change? Adding a IR exemption that would effect at the max 32 players is considered a significant change. Yes, adding a playoff team to each league is a significant change to the bylaws. Citing case example, the IR exemption was almost shelved because the NFLPA and NFL couldn't originally come to terms on concessions.. eventually they came back to the table and hammered it out.

Continue to believe as you may.

Originally Posted by: Pack93z 

No 92 additional players wouldn't be a significant change as it pertains to the CBA. It is still 4 wild card games being played and the same number of players playing in them. And the payment and practice schedules are specified. Players are getting paid for the games they play.

And yes, cut down days, IR exemption was significant because how and when the players can practice and come is something that had to be spelled out that wasn't.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 

But that is the thing... the IR and cut down days/player counts were defined. They amended the bylaws to change them.

In the same fashion that adding work days to at least 92 players is a significant change to their contract, the league year and schedules. I say as least 92 players, as there are other players that will be required to practice and prepare for additional games. Matters little that the compensation is set, it does matter that at least 92 players are putting their bodies and careers at risk for additional games. Hence why it would amount to a significant change.

The roster counts and cutdowns is a more valid comparison, the league is asking for and extending the work schedule for union workers. Similar to what they are asking for by adding playoff games.

Originally Posted by: Pack93z 

It isn't adding work days to what any player expects or hopes to be playing when the preseason starts. You seem to be thinking of it like they are being told they have to work labor day. If it went to court, all that would need to be done is ask any player. When the season starts, do you hope to be playing in the playoffs. they would all answer yes.

A similar situation would have been when the pro-bowl was moved from after the SB to before. It made it so None of the players in the superbowl could play so an additional group of players had the chance. It isn't an increase in the number of players who have to play, only a change in which players have the chance.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins