A 18-game season that satisfies all sides

[Pats726]

Football is not broken, I wish Goodell would stop trying to fix it.

I think THAT is the largest point here....there is NOTHING all that wrong with football that a few very MINOR adjustments might not clear up...like the few top draftees and lowering their ridiculous salaries...and I am sure there are a few more tweaks...BUT a major overhaul?? Leave it alone..really..If they wish to explore globally..there is the Pat Kirwin idea...which is a great one!! If they wish to develop younger players..maybe a developmental league....AND THEN maybe if they wish to expand....
I tend to think the timing of this is directly related to the CBA...if the owners do NOT get that now...they won't for some time..

 

[spacecrime]

When new ideas are approached with, "I don't care what anyone says, 18 games is a bad idea" and "playing with backups ruins the game," then it is more than a canard.

When evauating new concepts, there are no bad ideas, just ideas that, after evaluation, need work and rarely rarely will not work.

When you say, "your idea about having the backups playing even if the starters are healthy, which will screw up the season for teams, is bad," you are responding by rote. It may not work, but tell the truth, is playing a game in which both teams are playing with 21 out of 22 starters going to screw up the game for both teams? Are you serious? If the last 5-6 games are played with 20 out of 22 starters, will the games be ruined?

Giving backups a chance to play has some benefits. Being opposed to change on all levels is not acknowedging that. But many times on this site we talked about how good it was that some players got to play in games due to injury, how it helped them and the team down the stretch. No, this does not automatically mean resting starters for a game or two during the season is a good idea, but it does mean than if you deny there is any good to playing backups then you are simply putting your hands over your eyes and chanting, "I can't hear you."

It is almost as bad as the, "If it's don't broke, don't fix it" people. Everything can be improved. Everything. Doesn't mean you have to change anything, but you can't improve anything without changing it.

The important part is to actually look at and evaluate the changes and agree or not.

Horses and carriages weren't broke, outdoor plumbing wasn't broke, and rugby wasn't broke when it was modified into what is now American football.

I know I'm talking to people holding their eyes and chanting "I can't hear you," which makes me dumb.

The NFL will never adopt any of the suggestions in this thread, but here is another anyway: determine an average number of snaps played per position or per starter and limit players to that over 18 games instead of 16 games. They play no more. I don't like it as much as the rest a game, because resting starters one game a season ought to be considered even if they don't go to 18 games. It will help keep players from burning out at the end of the season.

But no suggestion can be discussed by those entrenched in their ideas, and unwilling to think about anything different.

Actually, it's not. His going down completely changed the NFL season, which was my point. It wasn't just the type of injury that impacts the standings, either:

The Financial Impact of Tom Brady?s Injury | Newsweek Business | Newsweek.com

Yes, it's true that his injury happened in week 1, but that's just a timing issue. Yes, it's possible, although unlikely, that adding games won't lead to a higher percentage of injuries in those later games. However, the more games you play, the greater the likelihood of the game's impact players getting injured, and the shorter the careers of all the players are likely to be. Adding 2 more games of punishment every year to running backs is not going to improve the game in any way.

As for opening my mind, you've got to be kidding. Just because I think your idea sucks and I don't want to water down the product, you feel that's justification for bringing out the old "afraid of change" canard. I'm all for GOOD change. I'm against needless change, and I'm against bad change. Adding more games at this point is needless, and your idea about having the backups playing even if the starters are healthy, which will screw up the season for teams, is bad.

 

[letekro]

When new ideas are approached with, "I don't care what anyone says, 18 games is a bad idea" and "playing with backups ruins the game," then it is more than a canard.

When evauating new concepts, there are no bad ideas, just ideas that, after evaluation, need work and rarely rarely will not work.

Your basic premise is to add two regular season games, but to play those games without the most important players on the field. I'm sorry, but that's a bad idea. It's artificial, and it makes no sense.

If they want 18 games, they should just play 18 games, with normal rules. I suppose inflating the rosters would help a bit. I think sprinkling in another bye week or two would also make sense. More liberal IR rules also may play a role. These and other minor modifications may work to ease the strain of a longer season without the need to resort to dramatic and senseless proposals like yours.

 

[Deus Irae]

When new ideas are approached with, "I don't care what anyone says, 18 games is a bad idea" and "playing with backups ruins the game," then it is more than a canard.

When evauating new concepts, there are no bad ideas, just ideas that, after evaluation, need work and rarely rarely will not work.

There are plenty of bad ideas. Yours was a perfect example.

When you say, "your idea about having the backups playing even if the starters are healthy, which will screw up the season for teams, is bad," you are responding by rote. It may not work, but tell the truth, is playing a game in which both teams are playing with 21 out of 22 starters going to screw up the game for both teams? Are you serious? If the last 5-6 games are played with 20 out of 22 starters, will the games be ruined?

How the hell could I possibly be responding by rote when you're the first person I've seen put forth that ridiculous idea?

Giving backups a chance to play has some benefits. Being opposed to change on all levels is not acknowedging that. But many times on this site we talked about how good it was that some players got to play in games due to injury, how it helped them and the team down the stretch. No, this does not automatically mean resting starters for a game or two during the season is a good idea, but it does mean than if you deny there is any good to playing backups then you are simply putting your hands over your eyes and chanting, "I can't hear you."

There's a difference between giving backups a play or two, and putting them in position where they are the starters when the starters are available to play. As a general rule, starters are the starters because they are the best players.

It is almost as bad as the, "If it's don't broke, don't fix it" people. Everything can be improved. Everything. Doesn't mean you have to change anything, but you can't improve anything without changing it.

Keep tossing out those strawmen.

The important part is to actually look at and evaluate the changes and agree or not.

I looked at your proposal. It was one of the very worst football proposals I've ever seen, if not the very worst football proposal I've ever seen.

Horses and carriages weren't broke, outdoor plumbing wasn't broke, and rugby wasn't broke when it was modified into what is now American football.

I know I'm talking to people holding their eyes and chanting "I can't hear you," which makes me dumb.

Ahhh.... more strawmen. What superior technology has come into football regarding season length changes from 16 games to 18 games? Where's the automobile to replace the horse or the indoor plumbing to replace the outhouse? As for Rugby vs. football, that's actually a perfect example of changes so radical that you end up with something completely different. If you think that helps your argument, you run with it.

The NFL will never adopt any of the suggestions in this thread, but here is another anyway: determine an average number of snaps played per position or per starter and limit players to that over 18 games instead of 16 games. They play no more. I don't like it as much as the rest a game, because resting starters one game a season ought to be considered even if they don't go to 18 games. It will help keep players from burning out at the end of the season.

But no suggestion can be discussed by those entrenched in their ideas, and unwilling to think about anything different.

Again, just because your idea is being rejected, you're claiming that those opposed to it are entrenched. Sometimes people don't like an idea because the idea is lousy. This is one of those times.

 

[Maroney TD]

Increasing the season isn't a bad idea itself but the idea of having backups play full games is just awful. There is no chance the NFL would ever have backups play full games during the regular season like that because then it would just be the preseason again and distorts the entire season.

Imagine a team going for a perfect regular season and then loses it because Tom Brady isn't allowed to play in the game. The NFL wants to expand the season to get more games that people actually want to watch. I think a lot of fans would avoid games where starters aren't playing.

 

[Pats726]

When new ideas are approached with, "I don't care what anyone says, 18 games is a bad idea" and "playing with backups ruins the game," then it is more than a canard.
When evauating new concepts, there are no bad ideas, just ideas that, after evaluation, need work and rarely rarely will not work..

I'm not sure I agree with that assertion.. ..so no bad ideas ever?? Hmmmm...That I can not agree with.

When you say, "your idea about having the backups playing even if the starters are healthy, which will screw up the season for teams, is bad," you are responding by rote. It may not work, but tell the truth, is playing a game in which both teams are playing with 21 out of 22 starters going to screw up the game for both teams? Are you serious? If the last 5-6 games are played with 20 out of 22 starters, will the games be ruined?
Giving backups a chance to play has some benefits. Being opposed to change on all levels is not acknowedging that. But many times on this site we talked about how good it was that some players got to play in games due to injury, how it helped them and the team down the stretch. No, this does not automatically mean resting starters for a game or two during the season is a good idea, but it does mean than if you deny there is any good to playing backups then you are simply putting your hands over your eyes and chanting, "I can't hear you.".

I know of no sport where part of the rules of the sport is HAVING to use backups. THAT is what you are proposing..and NO sport has ever done that. It's always, put your best players to play..and injuries are always a factor..BUT a LOT different if it is BY DESIGN!! THAT is what is different about what you are saying. And I think that is a large hurdle to begin to cross.

It is almost as bad as the, "If it's don't broke, don't fix it" people. Everything can be improved. Everything. Doesn't mean you have to change anything, but you can't improve anything without changing it.
The important part is to actually look at and evaluate the changes and agree or not.
Horses and carriages weren't broke, outdoor plumbing wasn't broke, and rugby wasn't broke when it was modified into what is now American football.
I know I'm talking to people holding their eyes and chanting "I can't hear you," which makes me dumb.

There are tings that can be improved on..but this is a FUNDAMENTAL change..not one that is a tweaking..

The NFL will never adopt any of the suggestions in this thread, but here is another anyway: determine an average number of snaps played per position or per starter and limit players to that over 18 games instead of 16 games. They play no more. I don't like it as much as the rest a game, because resting starters one game a season ought to be considered even if they don't go to 18 games. It will help keep players from burning out at the end of the season.

Another idea that LIMITS the game...why not keep it as is??

But no suggestion can be discussed by those entrenched in their ideas, and unwilling to think about anything different.

I thought about both and...I have my opinions..It is out of the box thinking..but just because it IS that doesn't make it automatically a good idea.

 

[JR4]

......
But no suggestion can be discussed by those entrenched in their ideas, and unwilling to think about anything different.

You are very right spacecrime. People don't like change. That old saying
people quote "Better the Devil you know than the Devil you don't"
is the principle many people live by.
The older people get it seems the more reluctant they are to change their ways.

 

[mgteich]

An increase in the number of regular season games is need since no one really likes four preseason games, especially the fans who pay full price.

If the owners want more games, then the players will more revenue, which they will get since the percentage will be of a higher number. Of course, if the players give this concession, the owners will be less able to win the "poor us" argument and reduce player compensation.

Personally, I favor 2 preseason games, 18 regular season games, and two bye weeks. The revenue would be considerably more than now. Obviously, teams that need an extra scrimmage or two will be free to hold them, as they do now.

I do not favor increasing the roster since I don't think that this is a need. A roster is 61 is plenty.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

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.

....

Nah. Thanks for thinking and trying, but it doesn't make sense.

If you think that the current injury reports are controversial, just wait until teams can decide which games to keep a franchise player from starting. When is the announcement made? Week before? At the start of the season? Will there be a lottery-like announcement every week at the exact same second as to who is playing or not playing that week?

Isn't football a team sport? How can the game arbitrarily alter the composition of a team week in and week out? Injury does enough to player continuity already; this would alter the nature of the game.

Ever since my sons were born, I've been thinking about the day that I bring them to Foxboro to watch Tom Brady, whose jersey they wore in their cribs, play an NFL game. I'm willing to take the risk that he couldn't play due to injury, which is part of the game. I'd be royally po'd if I dropped a grand or two on the tickets, hotel and trip and TB didn't play because of some contract rigamarole.

Who chooses which games a player sits out? If it's the coaching staff, doesn't that open the team to the charge that it's playing favorites by letting some players pad their stats against weaker teams and punishing others when contractual bonus incentives are at stake??

What if a player is scheduled to sit out the last game of the season, but he missed the prior game due to injury. Can he swap the games at the last minute?

What if a player gets dehydrated or has a minor injury that keeps him out of three quarters of a game. Does he get to ask to play in one of the other two games if he wants to improve his stats and meet a contract bonus incentive?

I think that the great strength of the NFL right now is that it leaves us fans begging for more when the season is over, unlike mind-numbingly long seasons for Hockey and Basketball, both of which are losing fan support and in contrast to a baseball season that a lot of us feel could lose the entire month of April without losing quality or fan interest.

thanks for the try, but fuhgeddaboutit.

 

[pdangle]

Sign me up for the 17 game, 2 byes and 1 neutral field game idea.

Play the neutral field game before byes and you also mitigate any travel concerns.

Players get an extra week of rest. We get two extra weeks of watchable games. Player salaries would increase based on expanded revenues (a regular season game at a new location with rabid fans and TV must net more revenue than a pre-season game, no?) and the resulting salary cap bump.

Someone get this proposal on Goodell's desk stat!

It seems like they are heading this way with promo games anyway. If the NFL wants to promote the product to other markets they might as well even the playing field for all teams and pocket some cash along the way.

We all know the NFL is great as is, but this change is so seamless it's a no-brainer.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Football is not broken, I wish Goodell would stop trying to fix it.

I think that there are aspects the Cap and of Revenue Sharing (including requiring small market teams to market their brands much more aggressively and to stop eating at the trough of successful franchises like the Pats and Boys) that need some serious tweaking and the league definitely has to address the issue of caring for disabled, retired players, but otherwise

:agree:

 

[PatsFanSince74]

When new ideas are approached with, "I don't care what anyone says, 18 games is a bad idea" and "playing with backups ruins the game," then it is more than a canard.

When evauating new concepts, there are no bad ideas, just ideas that, after evaluation, need work and rarely rarely will not work.

When you say, "your idea about having the backups playing even if the starters are healthy, which will screw up the season for teams, is bad," you are responding by rote. It may not work, but tell the truth, is playing a game in which both teams are playing with 21 out of 22 starters going to screw up the game for both teams? Are you serious? If the last 5-6 games are played with 20 out of 22 starters, will the games be ruined?

Giving backups a chance to play has some benefits. Being opposed to change on all levels is not acknowedging that. But many times on this site we talked about how good it was that some players got to play in games due to injury, how it helped them and the team down the stretch. No, this does not automatically mean resting starters for a game or two during the season is a good idea, but it does mean than if you deny there is any good to playing backups then you are simply putting your hands over your eyes and chanting, "I can't hear you."

It is almost as bad as the, "If it's don't broke, don't fix it" people. Everything can be improved. Everything. Doesn't mean you have to change anything, but you can't improve anything without changing it.

The important part is to actually look at and evaluate the changes and agree or not.

Horses and carriages weren't broke, outdoor plumbing wasn't broke, and rugby wasn't broke when it was modified into what is now American football.

I know I'm talking to people holding their eyes and chanting "I can't hear you," which makes me dumb.

The NFL will never adopt any of the suggestions in this thread, but here is another anyway: determine an average number of snaps played per position or per starter and limit players to that over 18 games instead of 16 games. They play no more. I don't like it as much as the rest a game, because resting starters one game a season ought to be considered even if they don't go to 18 games. It will help keep players from burning out at the end of the season.

But no suggestion can be discussed by those entrenched in their ideas, and unwilling to think about anything different.

While some posters may or may not have caricatured your proposal, I think it's just as true to say that you are caricaturing the responses of some others.

I read your OP carefully, I thought about it and I responded. The fact that I concluded it was a bad idea doesn't mean I'm not open to change and it certainly isn't personal and it most certainly isn't about you; it's about the idea. It's bad and you are digging yourself in ever more deeply as you defend it.

I have followed the NFL for years and have tried to study its history and great players. I think that your suggestion is an artificial recalibration of the game rather than a way to improve how the game is or might be played.

I am very open to change in many aspects of the game both on the field (just glad they didn't change the tuck rule) and off (I think that Revenue Sharing and other aspects of the CBA need to be seriouisly addressed). I just don't agree with the changes you proposed.

 

[godef]

13 minute quarters. I'm mostly joking, btw.

I figured. But basketball has 48 minute "hours" and 12 minutes quarters, so it's not too crazy idea. Still, think you'd need to round out those minutes. How 'bout we do the old Reaganomic model and have three halves at 18 minutes each?

 

[letekro]

I figured. But basketball has 48 minute "hours" and 12 minutes quarters, so it's not too crazy idea. Still, think you'd need to round out those minutes. How 'bout we do the old Reaganomic model and have three halves at 18 minutes each?

Bring it on! At least it will be entertaining watching players and coaches stumble all over their "four quarters of football" and "60 minutes of football" cliches.

 

[Snake Eyes]

PatsFanSince74,

That's a good point. I think with those adjustments and an overhauled officiating system we'd be in good shape.

If the league wants more money why not just put together a minor league team during the off months? They can try out new ideas before bringing them to the main league and they can really develop talent much better than in college, it would also be a place where cut players from the main league can still play and bring up the young guys.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

An increase in the number of regular season games is need since no one really likes four preseason games, especially the fans who pay full price.

If the owners want more games, then the players will more revenue, which they will get since the percentage will be of a higher number. Of course, if the players give this concession, the owners will be less able to win the "poor us" argument and reduce player compensation.

Personally, I favor 2 preseason games, 18 regular season games, and two bye weeks. The revenue would be considerably more than now. Obviously, teams that need an extra scrimmage or two will be free to hold them, as they do now.

I do not favor increasing the roster since I don't think that this is a need. A roster is 61 is plenty.

4 pre-season + 16 reg season = 2 pre-season + 18 reg season
I don't see the revenue difference

 

[Pats726]

4 pre-season + 16 reg season = 2 pre-season + 18 reg season
I don't see the revenue difference

TV is more expensive via the network...preseason games only have local revenue....It's a difference..BUT I think less than the owners think...

 

[MoLewisrocks]

PatsFanSince74,

That's a good point. I think with those adjustments and an overhauled officiating system we'd be in good shape.

If the league wants more money why not just put together a minor league team during the off months? They can try out new ideas before bringing them to the main league and they can really develop talent much better than in college, it would also be a place where cut players from the main league can still play and bring up the young guys.

They tried that and it failed. It was called NFL Europe (or Europa towards the end...LOL). The problem is short of having 32 minor league teams each affiliated with a parent NFL Club who controls players and coaches there isn't much consistent development going on. Lousy coaching, lousy scheming, no real direction, lost money. Hell, Rohan was the MVP of the NFLE Champions one year and he couldn't even be a backup at this level...

College represents the minors for the NFL. Only problem is by and large they play another game and there is no guarantee you can even draft the ones you might really want. And even if owners wanted to invest the $$$, which they don't, I can't see when you'd play this leagues games. Friday nights belong to HS, Saturday is college game day, Sunday is the pros. Who is going to spend money to watch mid-week minor league football...the peoploe who cry because they have to watch 2 pre season NFL football games? And if you run it after the pro season, like a spring league, the guys are toast by the time the arrive at your TC in July.

It's not baseball, and people have to quit trying to make it like baseball. Rosters are twice as big and the game is ten times more physical and it requires 11 guys performing simultaneously in unison on offense and defense.

 

[Pats726]

They tried that and it failed. It was called NFL Europe (or Europa towards the end...LOL). The problem is short of having 32 minor league teams each affiliated with a parent NFL Club who controls players and coaches there isn't much consistent development going on. Lousy coaching, lousy scheming, no real direction, lost money. Hell, Rohan was the MVP of the NFLE Champions one year and he couldn't even be a backup at this level...

Actually..NFLE failed beacuse it had no REAL identity...it wasn't a REAL developmental league at all...and HARDLY some globilization reaching out either..And the league wasn't anything close to commercial...SO??? Instead it was a weird mishmash of various things and it did nothing...I think if they put their mind to a REAL developmental league could be successful...IF done correctly...Not sure the league cares enough for that...

 

[Snake Eyes]

They tried that and it failed. It was called NFL Europe (or Europa towards the end...LOL).

I don't think you can fault the concept due to the failure of NFL Europe, it's like saying the McRib is weak because it didn't sell in any of the vegetarian communes it was sold in. The concept must be tried in an environment where it actually has the potential to take root, the Euros love soccer but not our brand of football, there are also older players that would rather retire than to travel to Europe just to play.

I don't see how a minor league must be a failure for the reasons you stated but the NCAA is a successful de facto minor league even though there are all those same issues. Colleges are very limited in how much time they can have an athlete train and play because the NCAA is trying to perpetuate the academic farce. All the time we see athletes who are stars in college fail miserably in the NFL, yet we also see undrafted free agents become superstars. A true minor league would be more efficient than relying just on college.

If they're really solid they might not go directly to the training camp, maybe they'd skip a season or sit on the practice squad, it's not 100% efficient but it's a lot better than wasting all the talent that inevitably slips through the cracks, and the extra benefit is that football fans can watch quality games during these off months.