Brady-To-Branch
Third String But Playing on Special Teams
- Joined
- May 3, 2006
- Messages
- 732
- Reaction score
- 2
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.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.
Since most teams would probably play their 2nd string QB against soft opponents and reserve the starter's appearances to games vs top teams, this could have the side effect of creating a false competitive balance in the league1. 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.
13-1/2 minutes a quarters? Yuck.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.
Goodell is the mouthpiece of the owners, kill the owners.
Oh, yeah, way too big a jump for teh NFL to make. Thinking outside the box is what every organization gives lip service to while resisting change as much as possible.I like your ideas. It may not be a perfect solution but it is a starting point.
Perhaps some modifications of what you propose may find a consensus.
I'm sure you realize that what you are suggesting is a BIG change to the
way the league has been run.
13-1/2 minutes a quarters? Yuck.
Another nice thought, except for #4. Salary cap is not an arbitrary number to raise or lwoer, but is calulated on revenues.Gamblers would be lurking for that information about which game the important players would be taking off. I don't like the forced 2 games off idea at all.
I think my idea earlier is the simplest compromise.
To lay it all out:
1) Two preseason games are gone, two regular season games are added
2) Players already under contract for the adjusted seasons get a pay raise by a compromise amount (not 12.5% for the increase in "real" games but not the 0% the owners would like for the same 20 games played as now), say 6.25%
3) Roster size is bumped from 53 to 55 or 56.
4) Salary cap min/max gets raised enough to allow for #2 and #3 (10%?)
5) Injured reserve is replaced by 5 game and 10-game disabled lists, allowing return of guys only slightly hurt (like Crable last year), with #3 assures that late game seasons are not affected by injury moreso than now
6) The added TV money from the 2 more regular season games (32 more televised regular season games in total) is used to offset the costs of changes #2, #3, and #4.
Who gets left out in all of this? Coaches evaluation time is reduced, but they can get more of that done in camp and intrasquad scrimmages. Fans win, owners don't lose out, players run the risk of more injuries but their numbers are expanded by the roster size change, salary cap change, and their pay is raised as well if they already are under contract for the changed year.
What's not to like, other than the goofy idea of everybody playing neutral site games is gone. Do we really need that?
I really don't think anyone wins in this situation...Gamblers would be lurking for that information about which game the important players would be taking off. I don't like the forced 2 games off idea at all.
I think my idea earlier is the simplest compromise.
To lay it all out:
1) Two preseason games are gone, two regular season games are added
2) Players already under contract for the adjusted seasons get a pay raise by a compromise amount (not 12.5% for the increase in "real" games but not the 0% the owners would like for the same 20 games played as now), say 6.25%
3) Roster size is bumped from 53 to 55 or 56.
4) Salary cap min/max gets raised enough to allow for #2 and #3 (10%?)
5) Injured reserve is replaced by 5 game and 10-game disabled lists, allowing return of guys only slightly hurt (like Crable last year), with #3 assures that late game seasons are not affected by injury moreso than now
6) The added TV money from the 2 more regular season games (32 more televised regular season games in total) is used to offset the costs of changes #2, #3, and #4.
Who gets left out in all of this? Coaches evaluation time is reduced, but they can get more of that done in camp and intrasquad scrimmages. Fans win, owners don't lose out, players run the risk of more injuries but their numbers are expanded by the roster size change, salary cap change, and their pay is raised as well if they already are under contract for the changed year.
What's not to like, other than the goofy idea of everybody playing neutral site games is gone. Do we really need that?
You gotta stop and think, man.When will these greedy bastards be satisfied? Did they learn nothing by seeing what happened when Brady was lost for the entire season?
16 games is more than enough, and 18 games is too much.
Goodell can't resign fast enough.
You gotta stop and think, man.
First, I doubt that Brady's injury was affected by how many games were played in January next year.
Second, there are ways to have an 18 or more game season while letting each player play only a specified number of games.
But you have to at least open your mind for a few minutes before automatically gainsaying any idea that is different from the way it is now.
If you guys had your way, we'd be playing 11 games in leather helmets and you would have to place the ball on the ground for the touchdown to count. And basketball would go back to 16-12 final scores without a 24-second clock.
Using Brady's game 1 injury as a reason why we shouldn't go to 18 games is simply grasping for straws.
I don't think it makes a difference who the commissioner is, the owners want more $$ and to them this is the best way to get it. Tagliabozo was the one who was pushing so hard to play regular season games in other countries.