How to make a 20 game season work

[JR4]

...
IF THAT is a good reason to ruin a sport..which is what is being done..THAT is even dumber than I thought..

How do you know it will "ruin" a sport?

It just might make it more interesting. Consider the extra strategy that
will be needed and the intrigue as to how it will be managed.
Which teams do manage it best and which teams have the deeper roster of
high quality players will give the sport an added dimension of excitement.

Imagine a division race where one team is down by 3 games but has all of
it's key players for the last month and the other division members still
have several key players yet to sit out.

Imagine a team who normally wouldn't have a chance against a top team
getting to play a team who is sitting out it's start QB. It gives them
real hope of pulling off an upset.

... and I'm sure there are other intriguing scenarios to consider.

But ..... No ... we can't change it because it's never been done before.
Guess what ... everything that was done for the first time had never
been done before.

 

[Deus Irae]

They should just expand to 124 games, so that a team plays every other team 4 times. Also, they should adjust roster sizes, too. You only need 11 starters on offense and defense. Even when you add an entirely new 11 on special teams (13 with the 'foot' guys), that's only 35 players. So, let's give them 5 more players in case of injuries.


40 player rosters
124 game seasons.


That'll really help with the owners' finances, give everyone plenty of games to watch, and the players can ask for bigger contracts.


It's a win for everyone!

 

[JR4]

I think this could be a marketing nightmare. Picture this scenario

A Monday night game, New England vs Minnesota, superstars everywhere on the field, AP vs the Pats high power offense. Well, Minn's next three games are GB, Chicago and let's say Dallas, all three huge conference and division matchups. The Pats meanwhile are looking at the next three games of Indy, Pitt and Miami, two first place teams in their conference and a tough division rival. Seeing how this for both teams is an interconference match-up, where a win would be nice, but a loss is nowhere near as crushing as any of those other 6 games for both teams, so both teams sit their stars, so we have a Monday night marquee match-up with all the stars possibly sitting down because both teams have a hell stretch coming up which could decide their season, either in division or in conference getting a bye.

Also, you need to do something for the special teams players. Would you really want to lose a game on a last second figgie because some dude off the street had to kick it instead of Ghost?

Good thoughts. Easy to fix the Monday night situation. Starters can only be rested when there are more than two games scheduled to be played
at the same time and date.

Special teams needs to be addressed. That is a coaching decision on which
players make the roster. Players that can play more than one position
at a high level will become in demand.
So I got a guy who can kick very well and is also a good TE.
Guess what ... he makes the roster

 

[Snake Eyes]

JR4,

Here's an idea, try that set-up in the minor league and see how it works.

 

[DaBruinz]

What is the purpose of change? To make something better. And that is what the "Competition Committee" has forgotten and what Goodell doesn't get.

Will adding 1, 2 or 4 games make the NFL better? No. I don't believe it will. If anything, it will dilute the league even more because there will be more injuries.

As it stands right now, 8 teams play 17 games in a season and 2 teams could play as many as 20 games in a season. A 20 game season is just too long.

Its already bad enough that the league has screwed with the schedules with its insistence on Thursday night games and Saturday games.

Is a 20 game schedule going to draw more fans to Oakland, San Fran, St. Louis, or other franchises that continue to put a poor product on the field? No, Its not.

If the NFL expands the season by 1,2, or 4 games, its going to create more problems and it will have a negative overall affect on the league.

 

[DaBruinz]

It just boggles my mind how people immediately and vehemently jump on the change-is-bad bandwagon without at least thinking it through.

Change for the sake of change is bad. Period. The purpose of change is to make things better. Neither you nor anyone else has put up ONE good reason to explain why increasing the number of games is a good thing. There have been PLENTY of reasons on how increasing the season would be detrimental to the league.

Yes, there are disadvantages. You have to rest you QB and you have to decide when, and you will be second guessed as to which players you rest when. You could rest a WR and on the first play from scrimmage you lose two WR to injury.

But there are advantages, too.

what people are doing is coming up with reasons why NOT to go to more games. Okay, you don't want more games. But try to think, what if Goodell and the league DO go to a longer season. What is the best way to make it work.

That is what some of us are trying to brainstorm. Given that the league goes to more games, what is the best way to ensure player safety?

Can people address that?[/quote]

There isn't a way to ensure player safety by increasing the number of games. There isn't a way to even mitigate it. What you and everyone else is failing to realize is that these guys put in HOURS upon HOURS of physical practice time between games. As it stands right now, at the end of the play-offs, they are all spent. One only had to see how many players from SB winning teams opt out of the Pro Bowl to see that.

This isn't baseball where there is almost no physical contact between player's bodies. This isn't basketball or soccer where the game is primarily stamina based. And its not hockey where you have stamina and basically sprinting with a bit of hitting thrown in. Giving a player a game off isn't going to make them any "safer" because they are still going to be practicing.

 

[Pats726]

How do you know it will "ruin" a sport?

It just might make it more interesting. Consider the extra strategy that
will be needed and the intrigue as to how it will be managed.
Which teams do manage it best and which teams have the deeper roster of
high quality players will give the sport an added dimension of excitement.

Imagine a division race where one team is down by 3 games but has all of
it's key players for the last month and the other division members still
have several key players yet to sit out.

Imagine a team who normally wouldn't have a chance against a top team
getting to play a team who is sitting out it's start QB. It gives them
real hope of pulling off an upset.

... and I'm sure there are other intriguing scenarios to consider.

But ..... No ... we can't change it because it's never been done before.
Guess what ... everything that was done for the first time had never
been done before.

Firstly...you are changing to a great degree a sport that is more or less fine the way it is..CHANGING it deeply for what 2 games?? THAT is like throwing the baby out with the bath water...
Making it interesting....I can think of zillions of things that would make a game interesting but they are unworkable..
You can be Mr hotshot on this board with all the answers, but I would say if you are "serious" about this to peddle it to some who have experience with the NFL,,,ex-players, coaches, those in the media and see what reaction they have?? I doubt it will be as kind as many have been here.
Not been done before...AND WHO would want it done?? It's CRAP! Time to get a link back to the planet

 

[moosekill]

Though I agree that the 4 preseason games are worthless, I would also agree with Mike Reiss that the increased injury factor that a 20 game season (plus playoffs) would make a 20 game seaon unworkable, especially when you concider the amount of money that is tied up in those 53 man rosters. But here is how it COULD work with the following provisions.

1. No player could play more than 16 regular season games (if you wanted to make that 17 I wouldn't gripe)

2. Practise squads would increase from 8 to 10 (and if you wanted to make that 12, I wouldn't gripe) Practise squad guys would now earn 4 game checks (at the minimum I presume),

The bad new is that you'd have 4 games a season where your starting QB wouldn't play (though in Minnesota, they wouldn't notice )

On the other hand, it would be both interesting and challenging for both the fans and coaches to mix and match players and games that are missed.

I would extend the season 2 weeks. and perhaps add another mini camp during the off season. (start one week earlier, end one week later.)

I would replace the preseason games with 2 or 3 controlled scrimmages with other teams training nearby. That would give the coaches a chance to see bubble players in action against other competition, but limit injury factors.

For example teams could play 7 on 9 for running game drill with the DL and LBs vs the OL/TE and RBs . 7-7 passing drills with the LB - DBs vrs WRs - You could end the scrimage with 20 play 11-11 full scrimage controlled with quick whistles by the coaches.

All not as good as a real preseason game for the coaches (especially in the kicking game), but not bad either. In reality in these days the coaches already know who their top 45 players are by the end of mini camp. The rest of preseason is only to get those 45 players prepared for the regular season and find those last 8 guys, plus the practise squad.

As usual, your comments and refinements are welcome (as if I could stop them )

Ho hum, same "great" idea again. I think I'll wait till tomorrow and come up with another great idea.

This time we'll expand to 19 games, and only let players play 16 games, what do you guys think. It would be really cool, we could make every team pick up 3 pop warner kids, only the best mind you, and then force them to play running back and wide receiver. Think of how fun it will be to watch those kids develop throughout the year.

Now I understand no one has ever tried this before, but hell does that make it a bad idea? Of course not, come on lets think out of the box. Or perhaps we could set up a professional woman's league and force teams to use at least three of them every game. Think of the amazing marketing potential there.

 

[moosekill]

Or we could expand rosters by 4 players or so, go to 18 regular season games, two preseason games, pay the players a bit more, and get this, let the players play every game they can.

 

[Aldogg]

If you want to extend it to 18 reg with 2 preseason, why not add a second bye week? You still need 2 preseason games, as even though with the amount of OTAs, minicamps, training camp etc, you still need to see how players, rookies more importantly, handle their first live action, even if it is in preseason. And on top at that, take away the inactive list. Keep the PS, but all 53 guys on the roster dress.

 

[Rob0729]

Any expanded season plan that includes starters to be healthy scratches for rest and lack of wear and tear is a bad plan. Unless football gets to the number of game seasons like Major League Baseball or at least the NBA, a plan that has players sit out especially for multiple games is bad for the game. The first time a team is eliminated from the playoffs because they lose a game because they are forced to sit their franchise QB or another key starter, there will ne tons of controversy.

 

[JR4]

Any expanded season plan that includes starters to be healthy scratches for rest and lack of wear and tear is a bad plan. Unless football gets to the number of game seasons like Major League Baseball or at least the NBA, a plan that has players sit out especially for multiple games is bad for the game. The first time a team is eliminated from the playoffs because they lose a game because they are forced to sit their franchise QB or another key starter, there will ne tons of controversy.

only losers will complain. but they would probably complain about something
else. If BB lost out under new rules do you really think he would complain?
I think not. If a team decided to sit a key player for the wrong game then
that would be bad decision process. BTW, I think BB would have the upper
hand in this kind of system and I think he would love it. The chess master
would prevail.

 

[patchick]

Given that the goal is reducing injuries, let's think about the repercussions of forcing each of your starting o-linemen to sit down for 4 out of 20 games. Do you rotate them, with one of the 5 sitting out every game, so your ostensible starting line NEVER plays together and you NEVER field the same OL 2 weeks in a row? Given the critical importance of consistency and communication on the line, that sounds like a recipe for getting your QB killed.

So perhaps you should choose the 4 least important games of the year and sit them all together? But you can't risk standing your franchise QB behind a scrub line, so you throw in a scrub QB as cannon fodder. At this point you're conceding the game, so might as well rest some other key players too. In essence, you'd end up playing the 4 preseason scrub games but having them count.

Another question: when do teams have to announce who is sitting for a given week? Whenever the announcement comes, it's problematic. If you announce your "outs" at the beginning of the practice week, then an injury to the "ins" leaves you high and dry. But if you wait to make the announcement, then you face all sorts of subterfuge trying to run practices that legitimately prepare the players who will be playing, without letting on who is really going to be active. Not only is the football impact enormous, but the gambling impact is too. You'll need some counterpart to the injury reporting system.

(And if it's a gametime decision, then you have the network running promos all week straight into the pregame show hyping "Brady vs. Manning!!!"...but then neither player suits up. The networks would go ballistic.)

 

[Rob0729]

only losers will complain. but they would probably complain about something
else. If BB lost out under new rules do you really think he would complain?
I think not. If a team decided to sit a key player for the wrong game then
that would be bad decision process. BTW, I think BB would have the upper
hand in this kind of system and I think he would love it. The chess master
would prevail.

He wouldn't complain publically, but he would absolutely hate the system. And I would say that not only losers would complain. Everyone would complain. It is a monumentally stupid idea. Look at the Pats last year. Brady goes down in the first game and his back up starts the entire season. So under this plan, not only do the Pats have to play their second stringer all year, they gotta play their third stringer for four games on top of it. The Pats lose, the fans lose, the NFL loses.

I do think it is a great idea to implement a system that is unfair, cheats the fans of quality football, weakens the product because lesser play is on the field and marquee starts sit eventhough they are healthy. My guess is that the NFL isn't too keen on a change that would clearly weaken their product. I can't wait for the first time a team like the Pats plays on Sunday night and Belichick sits Brady because he feels that is a game where he can afford to rest Brady. I can see Roger Goodell's and **** Ebdersol's (head of NBC Sports) heads exploding already.

You can rest players like this when you have 63 or 163 games and a few individual games where starters are healthy scratches don't really matter, but even in a 20 game schedule every single game could be the difference between going to the playoffs or going home. The Pats wouldn't be immune to that.

BTW, you really don't know who is truly good or bad until 6-8 games into the season. So resting players at different times is a crap shoot not a calculated judgement. If you were to play Miami or Atlanta late in the season last year, you would have probably go into the season assuming you would rest a lot of key starters in that game and by the time you realize that they are actually that good you can't reverse the decision to sit a player like Brady eventhough it ends up being a key game in December against a quality opponent that you assumed would be a cake walk.

I want games decided because two teams at the fullest possible strength they can be at for that game go to battle and the better team that day wins.

 

[Rob0729]

BTW, how have we gotten to 20 regular season games? Are we really talking about eliminating the preseason and letting players go out cold with no preparation other than practice to start the season. No time to try to get cohesiveness? No time to workout who is going to be the starter in hotly contested position battles? The problems of going without a preseason could seriously help or hurt a team unfairly just as accidently resting the wrong player in a key game.

I really think people are overthinking this too much. I am not a huge fan of the expanded season, but the only way it is going to work right is for them to approach it the same way they approached a 16 game season. There are plenty of players who get serious injuries in the preseason. Injuries are not exclusive to run down players in December and January. You can make an argument that without a preseason, the injuries could go up because players especially rookies aren't prepared to play full speed right off the bat.

 

[Patjew]

Seems like something like this (but not this) could be plausible for 18 games, but not 20.

 

[Patjew]

Given that the goal is reducing injuries, let's think about the repercussions of forcing each of your starting o-linemen to sit down for 4 out of 20 games. Do you rotate them, with one of the 5 sitting out every game, so your ostensible starting line NEVER plays together and you NEVER field the same OL 2 weeks in a row? Given the critical importance of consistency and communication on the line, that sounds like a recipe for getting your QB killed.

So perhaps you should choose the 4 least important games of the year and sit them all together? But you can't risk standing your franchise QB behind a scrub line, so you throw in a scrub QB as cannon fodder. At this point you're conceding the game, so might as well rest some other key players too. In essence, you'd end up playing the 4 preseason scrub games but having them count.

Another question: when do teams have to announce who is sitting for a given week? Whenever the announcement comes, it's problematic. If you announce your "outs" at the beginning of the practice week, then an injury to the "ins" leaves you high and dry. But if you wait to make the announcement, then you face all sorts of subterfuge trying to run practices that legitimately prepare the players who will be playing, without letting on who is really going to be active. Not only is the football impact enormous, but the gambling impact is too. You'll need some counterpart to the injury reporting system.

(And if it's a gametime decision, then you have the network running promos all week straight into the pregame show hyping "Brady vs. Manning!!!"...but then neither player suits up. The networks would go ballistic.)

Not to mention I'd be pretty friggin pissed if I paid hundreds or thousands of dollars to go to that game and it ended up being KOC vs Sorgi. I'd kill someone.

 

[JR4]

Not to mention I'd be pretty friggin pissed if I paid hundreds or thousands of dollars to go to that game and it ended up being KOC vs Sorgi. I'd kill someone.

I agree from your previous post that 18 games is probably max.
In a previous post it was mentioned that sitting out games starters would
be limited to like Sunday afternoons when several games. Sitting out starters
for specialty games like Monday or Sunday night games would not be allowed.
As for paying thousands of dollars for a Sunday afternoon game ....
... you are a BIG fan alright if you do this. Not Big .. fanatical
(this sitting out players would not apply to the playoffs of course.)

 

[patchick]

Not to mention I'd be pretty friggin pissed if I paid hundreds or thousands of dollars to go to that game and it ended up being KOC vs Sorgi. I'd kill someone.

No joke. A stadium riot is all too easy to imagine.

What is the purpose of change? To make something better.

Sure...but alas, that "something" doesn't have to be the product. It can simply be the profits.

 

[Patjew]

I agree from your previous post that 18 games is probably max.
In a previous post it was mentioned that sitting out games starters would
be limited to like Sunday afternoons when several games. Sitting out starters
for specialty games like Monday or Sunday night games would not be allowed.
As for paying thousands of dollars for a Sunday afternoon game ....
... you are a BIG fan alright if you do this. Not Big .. fanatical
(this sitting out players would not apply to the playoffs of course.)

Well, most of that cost is airfare for me. It was alot cheaper when I lived in RI.