PITTSBURGH — Don’t ask the Pittsburgh Steelers about adding an 18th game to the NFL’s regular season. You’ll only get a mixed bag of responses. Some couldn’t care less, some are for it, and some are vehemently against it.

Steelers safeties Minkah Fitzpatrick and DeShon Elliott are firmly in the “against it” category. Speaking to Brooke Pryor of ESPN, both players were unabashed in their thoughts on adding another game.

“They’re not paying us enough money already,” Elliott said. “They’re stingy with their money, so they want to make us play 18 games, as a player union, we should get way more money than what we’re getting — and not just the top guys. ”

Elliott continued his rant by expressing disappointment in the league’s greed. In his view, the owners have no risk but gain all of the reward.

“And the thing is, they’re not out here playing football,” he said. “They’re not here running around putting their bodies on the line. They don’t care. All they care about is making money, but if you’re going to make money on the top end, the bottom end has to make money too.”

Fitzpatrick was in full agreement with his fellow safety. The leader of the Steelers’ secondary is not a fan of more games in the regular season. He doesn’t understand the point of changing or why they would remove a preseason game to do that.

“Why do we keep adding games?” Fitzpatrick said. “I think 17 is more than enough, plus a playoff…The dudes that play a hundred percent of the snaps in the regular season are probably barely playing in the (removed) preseason game, so it doesn’t really do too much.”

The views of the team’s safeties are likely felt across the league. ESPN surveyed NFL players about this issue to gauge the temperature. 46% of the respondents voted in favor of an additional regular season game to the schedule. 8% voted yes, but required some stipulations, and 19% voted against it. Pryor also noted that multiple concerns from players were raised during the survey, but 27% felt they didn’t have a concrete response.

The other main issue to figure out is the revenue split. With the current 17-game schedule, players receive a revenue share of just under 49%. The current collective bargaining agreement is in place until 2030, so a concrete decision will likely wait until the next CBA negotiations. Until then, the Steelers safety duo is unlikely to change their opinions on this matter.

Make sure you bookmark All Steelers for the latest news, exclusive interviews, film breakdowns and so much more

Subscribe to the All Steelers YouTube Channel

Maine officials on Friday asked a state judge to dismiss a lawsuit by environmentalists accusing the state of failing to meet targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by not adopting a policy to boost the sales of electric vehicles.

The Department of Environmental Protection is not required by law to adopt a policy expanding electric vehicle use and its “alleged failure or refusal” to adopt the policy is discretionary and not subject to judicial review, the state said in its response to an April 22 lawsuit by the Conservation Law Foundation, Sierra Club and Maine Youth Action.

The lawsuit, filed in Cumberland County Superior Court, also said that the environmental groups’ accusation that the DEP has failed to adopt rules required by Maine’s statute regarding greenhouse gas emission reduction should be dismissed because the groups do not have legal standing to make such a request.

In addition, the state said the DEP has not failed to comply with climate change legislation and that the lawsuit asks the court to to breach Maine’s constitutional separation of powers.

Emily K. Green, senior attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation in Maine, said the state “would be better served by spending its time and resources to implement our climate law, rather than attempting to dismiss our lawsuit before we get a day in court.”

Environmentalists said in their lawsuit that the DEP and Board of Environmental Protection, which provides oversight of the DEP, are responsible for implementing Maine’s Climate Law that requires greenhouse gas emissions to be cut at least 45% from 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% by 2050.

The environmentalists have asked the court to order the board to adopt rules that comply with the state’s climate law, with a priority for transportation on or before Nov. 1. They asked the court to order the agency to adopt EV rules or an alternative rule by the same date. That date is one month before the Dec. 1 deadline for the Maine Climate Council to update the state climate plan.

This story will be updated.

Copy the Story Link

« Previous