A 18-game season that satisfies all sides

[Brady-To-Branch]

I'm satisfied with the NFL as is.

Don't fix what's not broken.

 

[JR4]

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.

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.

 

[Deus Irae]

Terrible idea

 

[godef]

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.

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 league

 

[godef]

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.

13-1/2 minutes a quarters? Yuck.

 

[Tunescribe]

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

I think it's the other way around. Of course, the owners would have to go along with what he says for any of his outlandish proposals to be adopted, but I think he's an overly ambitious instigator out to make his mark.

 

[TrueBeliever]

So you want to have 4 preseason games PLUS 2 more regular season games? You're going to run into the same problem as the NBA.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

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?

 

[spacecrime]

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.

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.

It is a proposal that satisfies the needs of both parties (more revenue and even fewer injuries than now), but entrenched thinking will never allow it.

I thought some here might find merit in it, but you have to stop for a moment and really consider it without an automatic response of "18 games? Ack, no! Bad!"

Good points were made about punter-kicker-long snapper. As for the rest, just knee-jerk responses. I understand what someone said about losing the game in which the starting QB was out, but that is merely another layer of stretegy and gamesmanship. Should we rest him now because he is a bit tired? Should we wait until we play the Raiders? Should we space out the rest days? Should we save them both until the end to get him rested for the playoffs?

This will add a level of strategy similar to substituting RH and LF pinch-hit batters and LH-RH pitchers in baseball, and when to pinch hit for pitchers in the NL. It will put more of the game on the coach's shoulders.

But I agree with those who say it will never be implemented. Doesn't mean it's a bad idea, just too different for in-the-box thinkers (and those who do not want players to miss time from any games because it will detract from their star-power experience).

 

[Deus Irae]

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. At this rate, they should just go all in and make it a 31 game season. After all, if more games don't hurt the product, let's get a full round in.

Goodell can't resign fast enough.

 

[letekro]

13-1/2 minutes a quarters? Yuck.

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

 

[spacecrime]

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?

Another nice thought, except for #4. Salary cap is not an arbitrary number to raise or lwoer, but is calulated on revenues.

Also, the neutral site is an excellent idea once you accept that game are going to be played overseas. Right now one team loses a home game. Playing on neutral sites means no team loses one home game. Of course, it is for a 17-game season, another excellent outside-the-box compromise.

 

[Pats726]

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...
Development of players is basically out the window...instrasquad scrimmages and camp activities are NOT the same as live game action. I am not sure how fans in..players will still be worn out at the end of the season, so quality of play will be reduced. Players will have shorter careers and will run the risk of greater injuries. THAT problem has not been solved.

 

[spacecrime]

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.

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.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Interesting thread!

I favor turning one preseason game into a regular season game and playing that game at one of the 'international' venues.
The addition of a 2nd bye week to aid in player recovery. Season is now 2 weeks 'longer'.
Increase the 53 to 56 or so; helps develop talent to replace those killed by the long season.
Go to a multi-tiered replacement for IR with a choice of 5 or 10 week hiatus. Why punish teams and players who recover?

 

[TrueBeliever]

Goodell can't resign fast enough.

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.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

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.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

Goodell is a clown and, if he's just doing everything he does as the owners' lap dog, it means that he's a weak clown. He's supposed to be the face/leader of the league. If he doesn't have the brains to see when ideas suck, and the balls to call the owners out about it, he's worse than useless.

 

[TrueBeliever]

Fair enough. Not long after I wrote that I thought about it, and the commissioner's job is to make things work for the good of the league as a whole, not just do whatever the owners tell him.

 

[Snake Eyes]

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