A 18-game season that satisfies all sides

[spacecrime]

Owners want more revenue that will come from 18 games.

Players are baked after 16 games and do not want to play more for fear of injuries.

Coaches are concerned that only 2 preseaon games will not all adequate time to prepare starters to play AND to evaluate bubble talent (part of the 18 game season is a reduction of preason fomr 4 to 2 games)

The concerns of both sides, players and owners, are easily reached with a simple compromise.

First, leave preseason alone. It is mostly bubble players anyway. Cutting two games will not help the players, will reduce owners revenues, will hurt bubble players, and make roster decisions dicier.

Second, add two more regular season games with the following changes:

1. Pay Restrict players from playing in more than 16 regular season games. They will not be playing any more than they are now, which should not only prevent injuries for extra games, but it will actually HELP the players. In effect, they get 2 more bye weeks to rest up.

2. Expand the rosters by 2 or three players so that there is a bigger pool to play on games where several players are taking one of their two games off.

I'm sure this cam be massaged, but those are the bones of my compromise:

Players still play 16 games, and now will get two games off during the season to recover.

Owners get two more games to draw in revenues.

Players get 60% of the increased revenues, so adding players to the roster will not cut into current players earnings.

 

[captadamnj]

How does that satisfy the fans that have to watch backup qb's play in 2 games during the year? Will the ticket prices be discounted for those games?

 

[JSn]

Couldn't the league move to 17 reg. season games and 2 bye weeks?

That effectively increases watchable football by two weeks, as I assume we all find a game to watch when the Pats are off anyway.

Maybe the owners don't quite get what they want out of that, but the NFL as a whole will make a PILE more cash.

Just a thought, anyway.

 

[moosekill]

17 won't work, odd number of home and away games, it will be either 16 or 18.

 

[moosekill]

and the first post has zero possibility of working..none zip zero.

 

[spacecrime]

How does that satisfy the fans that have to watch backup qb's play in 2 games during the year? Will the ticket prices be discounted for those games?

How much were ticket prices reduced for games in which Matt Cassel played? Did attendence drop off noticable last season?

You still get to watch the starting QB 16 regular season games a year, just like now. Why force him to play 18? The whole purpose is to avoid player injuries, not increase them.

But you bring up a good point. QBs will likely be out the easiest games on the schedule, a perfect time for backups to get meaningful playing time. This will greatly benefit teams in the long run, as they will no longer have to rely on preseason games to evaluate they backup QBs and the backups will get meaningful playing time to prepare for when the starting QB retires.

Since every team must rest its QB two games, no team has an advantage.

And if you have two QBs vying for the backup job, give them each a game to play and increase the importance of that game to them and the team.

I like it.

 

[letekro]

Owners want more revenue that will come from 18 games.

Players are baked after 16 games and do not want to play more for fear of injuries.

Coaches are concerned that only 2 preseaon games will not all adequate time to prepare starters to play AND to evaluate bubble talent (part of the 18 game season is a reduction of preason fomr 4 to 2 games)

The concerns of both sides, players and owners, are easily reached with a simple compromise.

First, leave preseason alone. It is mostly bubble players anyway. Cutting two games will not help the players, will reduce owners revenues, will hurt bubble players, and make roster decisions dicier.

Second, add two more regular season games with the following changes:

1. Pay Restrict players from playing in more than 16 regular season games. They will not be playing any more than they are now, which should not only prevent injuries for extra games, but it will actually HELP the players. In effect, they get 2 more bye weeks to rest up.

2. Expand the rosters by 2 or three players so that there is a bigger pool to play on games where several players are taking one of their two games off.

I'm sure this cam be massaged, but those are the bones of my compromise:

Players still play 16 games, and now will get two games off during the season to recover.

Owners get two more games to draw in revenues.

Players get 60% of the increased revenues, so adding players to the roster will not cut into current players earnings.

So, you're effectively adding two more preseason games, but having them count as regular season games? Brilliant!

 

[Tunescribe]

My solution: kill Roger Goodell.

 

[Rob0729]

Owners want more revenue that will come from 18 games.

Players are baked after 16 games and do not want to play more for fear of injuries.

Coaches are concerned that only 2 preseaon games will not all adequate time to prepare starters to play AND to evaluate bubble talent (part of the 18 game season is a reduction of preason fomr 4 to 2 games)

The concerns of both sides, players and owners, are easily reached with a simple compromise.

First, leave preseason alone. It is mostly bubble players anyway. Cutting two games will not help the players, will reduce owners revenues, will hurt bubble players, and make roster decisions dicier.

Second, add two more regular season games with the following changes:

1. Pay Restrict players from playing in more than 16 regular season games. They will not be playing any more than they are now, which should not only prevent injuries for extra games, but it will actually HELP the players. In effect, they get 2 more bye weeks to rest up.

2. Expand the rosters by 2 or three players so that there is a bigger pool to play on games where several players are taking one of their two games off.

I'm sure this cam be massaged, but those are the bones of my compromise:

Players still play 16 games, and now will get two games off during the season to recover.

Owners get two more games to draw in revenues.

Players get 60% of the increased revenues, so adding players to the roster will not cut into current players earnings.

Satisfies everyone except for the fans. Actually doesn't satisfy everyone because it would require teams to focus more on depth on an already thinned league. Or how about if your starting QB goes down like Brady did in the first game and your back up QB can only play 16 games and you gotta start your 3rd stringer for 1-2 games? What is you are eliminated from the playoffs because you have to sit your starting QB in what looked to be an easy win, but ended up being a tough pivitol game.

Nice try, but I think it fails. I would rather have four preseason games than have real games where Brady is a healthy scratch. I don't want playoff seeding decided because star players sit out games to rest. I hate it at the end of the season when a team that has locked up everything they can plays a team fighting for a playoff spot and the team who locked up everything pulls their starters by halftime. Why would I be happy with a system that is designed to have starters sit out.

 

[NumenorBlader]

The reality is that this is the next step for the NFL.

The issue is that Goodell shouldn't force it right now. I guess when I say that in the past, when the season was being expanded from 13 games to 16, the players may have had some outcry over the increase in physicality and all that (the older guys will have to verify). But it happened. And it works. IMO, if top rugby players can play in the range of 22+ regular season games +European games +international games, then there is no reason with slightly increased roster sizes that the NFL can't increase it by ONLY 2 games to 18. Why don't they just cut 1 preseason game and do it that way? Therefore there is 18 reg, 3 preseason which is what some teams to when they play the HoF game anyway.

The thing is, the NFL have to find the maximising amount of games between maximum revenue and increased salaries (i.e. increased expenditure through more players/higher basic salaries). It's all in the maths.

I like it the way it is. But I'm not gonna lie, if they could do 18 games, I'd love it.

Blader.

 

[Rob0729]

17 won't work, odd number of home and away games, it will be either 16 or 18.

Unless every team plays a game every season at a neutral field. The league wants to expand globally. They could have London, Mexico, Toronto, etc. host multiple games a season. That way every team plays one international game a year and doesn't have to give up a home regular season game to do so. They could also play in in cities locally that don't have teams but the league might want to get into like Los Angeles (a good compromise until they finally get a team there) and San Antonio.

 

[NumenorBlader]

Satisfies everyone except for the fans. Actually doesn't satisfy everyone because it would require teams to focus more on depth on an already thinned league. Or how about if your starting QB goes down like Brady did in the first game and your back up QB can only play 16 games and you gotta start your 3rd stringer for 1-2 games? What is you are eliminated from the playoffs because you have to sit your starting QB in what looked to be an easy win, but ended up being a tough pivitol game.

Nice try, but I think it fails. I would rather have four preseason games than have real games where Brady is a healthy scratch. I don't want playoff seeding decided because star players sit out games to rest. I hate it at the end of the season when a team that has locked up everything they can plays a team fighting for a playoff spot and the team who locked up everything pulls their starters by halftime. Why would I be happy with a system that is designed to have starters sit out.

I don't think the rule about sitting players out is any good either.

But do you think about expansion without this rule?

Blader.

 

[Pats726]

Satisfies everyone except for the fans. Actually doesn't satisfy everyone because it would require teams to focus more on depth on an already thinned league. Or how about if your starting QB goes down like Brady did in the first game and your back up QB can only play 16 games and you gotta start your 3rd stringer for 1-2 games? What is you are eliminated from the playoffs because you have to sit your starting QB in what looked to be an easy win, but ended up being a tough pivitol game.

Nice try, but I think it fails. I would rather have four preseason games than have real games where Brady is a healthy scratch. I don't want playoff seeding decided because star players sit out games to rest. I hate it at the end of the season when a team that has locked up everything they can plays a team fighting for a playoff spot and the team who locked up everything pulls their starters by halftime. Why would I be happy with a system that is designed to have starters sit out.

I agree....an interesting proposal..BUT really..having ALL players sit out two games..is not smart..and I think to accomplish that the roster will be needed to expand a LOT more than two games. Does that mean the kicjers, punters and long snappers ALSO will have to stay out two games?? That is the one thing that will not work...

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

4 preseason games at full price for fans is stupid for the consumer, unnecessary for the players, and probably even overkill for the coaches.

2 preseason games and 18 regular season games is fine with me. The issue is the players union. I say throw the players a bone and get them onboard by giving the players additional salary for added real games, and a likewise adjustment in the salary cap.

16 to 18 is a 12.5% increase in games that count, but no change in overall games if 2 preseason games are cut. I think you split the difference and all players already under contract for seasons that will be converted from 16 games to 18 games would automatically get something like a 6.25% raise.

The extra TV revenue from televised regular season games as opposed to preseason games (mostly televised locally, except for a few on MNF and also some on NFL network) should make up that gap and then some, even for the owners.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The concerns of both sides, players and owners, are easily reached with a simple compromise.

I think all you've managed to do here is underscore that there are no easily reached simple compromises to be had in this instance.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Unless every team plays a game every season at a neutral field. The league wants to expand globally. They could have London, Mexico, Toronto, etc. host multiple games a season. That way every team plays one international game a year and doesn't have to give up a home regular season game to do so. They could also play in in cities locally that don't have teams but the league might want to get into like Los Angeles (a good compromise until they finally get a team there) and San Antonio.

I believe this is at the heart of Goodell's expand the regular season drive. I think Florio is correct in stating what he really wants is the compromise of 3/17 with one pre season and one regular season game played out of area. That will placate the contenders season ticket holders who will lose one of the two games they don't want to pay for anyway and owners who can more than cover for that gate loss with a regular season gate split from some new sold out venue plus an expanded pooled (TV) revenue without having to listen to their season ticket holders whine...

The union will sell it to their rank and file as expanding the pie, including probably increasing rosters by 1-2 players (32-64 new paying jobs). But in the end it will dilute the product over time and shorten careers for an expanded player pool and football audience. And since the NFLPA has always been a firm proponent of trickle down economics, the lions share of any increase will end up in the pockets of the top 5-10% of players and there will be more disabled retirees for the NFL to pay lip service to and the NFLPA to screw over.

 

[Pats726]

4 preseason games at full price for fans is stupid for the consumer, unnecessary for the players, and probably even overkill for the coaches.

Maybe it is stupid for the copnsumer, but years ago there were SIX preseason games. As far as the consumer goes, I wobder if you would rather have the 4 preseason games and have players in a better physical condition for the playoffs or only two preseason games and have players more worn down for the games needed at the end of the season?? I tend to think players are already having more trouble at the end of the year. Maybe consumers would rather have fresh players in the playoffs instead of injured and worn out ones? (Note I hope you read Reiss's piece on injuries in yesterday's paper)
For the players..I wonder which ones you are talking about? The starters ONLY need two games to really get ready. For the young players and for the coaches, four games isn't even enough. They need MORE time not less to evaluate talent and develop players. CoachB noted this last year--two was fine for getting a team ready, six would help the young players, four a food compromise.
I don't think coaches believe it's overkill at all.
NmrBldr----I don't think the comparison between rugby and football is a valid one. Different sport, different types of wear and tear on the body, different injuries...apples and oranges.

 

[moosekill]

My solution: kill Roger Goodell.

Goodell is the mouthpiece of the owners, kill the owners.

 

[patsfan13]

I don't like the idea of a team that goes deep into the playoffs playig up to 22 fames. Shortened careers would be the result.

No Thanks.

 

[letekro]

Isn't it obvious? Shorten the games. 18 games @ 52 minutes approximates 16 games @ 60 minutes. More games, no greater chance of injury - everybody wins! You can even fill in the extra time with commercials. The owners would be in heaven.