Uh-oh. Looks like the NFL is seriously considering the 18/16 concept

n6249c · Jul 12, 2019

KingOfTheCourt said:
Just wait until a team decides to rest all of its star players in a marquee game on a Sunday night to prove a point. I'm sure the league would LOVE that

Even better: Both teams.

sphen22 · Jul 12, 2019

League's attepmt to slow brady down. Brady wont ever sit healthy.

n6249c · Jul 12, 2019

My first thought was that this is handing Belichick and the Pats an immense advantage, because of the way they build and manage rosters and game plans.

Also, opens a bunch of new prop bets for Vegas plus complicating their existing props to the advantage of the house.

Crazy Patriot Guy said:
I can't even comprehend the roster management challenges that would come from this.

turkeyneck said:
More complexity benefits the Pats. BB does complexity better than the rest of the league. Nevertheless, this idea stinks on ice.

patfanken said:
....

As far as the fans go, I think it would be fascinating to talk about the rosters going into each game. Who plays and doesn't would make for great discussions as well thinking about the 20-2o hindsight thought after the game.

Bottom line- line Turkeyneck made an excellent point. If this idea went through it would ratchet up the complexity of the game as well as putting a premium on good coaching, 2 areas when the Pats EXCEL. Building a deeper roster filled with a lot of mid level quality players would become more important and that's what the Pats have been doing for YEARS I'm fine with any changes that give the Pats an advantage.
...

Raymond · Jul 12, 2019

This idea was proposed by a member here some time ago and I thought it was insanely ludicrous.

Now I know why the NFL has proposed it.

I would love to hear Bill's thoughts on this.

Nikolai · Jul 13, 2019

Bruins29 said:
Just some crybabies trying to figure out how to (once again) level the playing field between the Pats and the rest of the NFL. When your team has the games greatest player of course the losers want to devise a rule to get him off the field. Duh....

Wheelman said:
Lol! can you imagine almost every team resting their best players against the Patriots. Would be too funny.

Edit: @PatsDeb beat me to it!

sphen22 said:
League's attepmt to slow brady down. Brady wont ever sit healthy.

This dumb plan would unintentionally give the Pats a huge advantage. As many have already mentioned, this complicates roster management and makes the middle of the roster more important than ever. Both of these play into the Pats hands.

The fact that a number of teams will sit their best against the Pats will help pave the way to the #1 seed. It might also help the Pats avoid the annual headscratching loss to a subpar team.

All that said, this idea is completely stupid. I can't see any way this actually gets implemented. All those Monday and Thursday night games that turn out to be crap will likely be even worse when what was predicted in the offseason to be a marquee matchup turns out to be a mismatch; with the lesser team laying down and making the game even worse.

Maybe they want the occasional college-style outcome of a New England 70 - New York Jete 3?

Tunescribe · Jul 13, 2019

Hi folks, I just returned to file a report from Planet Sensible, which exists in an alternate universe. There, the NFL has a 16-game regular season and preseason games have been replaced by controlled scrimmages open to the public free of charge as part of training camp. Rules emphasize balance between offense and defense. There is no Thursday Night Football. Also, the head custodian at Met Life Stadium in the Meadowlands is a guy named Roger Goodell.

Nikolai · Jul 13, 2019

Tunescribe said:
Hi folks, I just returned to file a report from Planet Sensible, which exists in an alternate universe. There, the NFL has a 16-game regular season and preseason games have been replaced by controlled scrimmages open to the public free of charge as part of training camp. Rules emphasize balance between offense and defense. There is no Thursday Night Football. Also, the head custodian at Met Life Stadium in the Meadowlands is a guy named Roger Goodell.

I was there until you said "head custodian". I assume he'd be the guy on work release (after serving time for selling counterfeit Ray Bans) who is on call to shovel snow after a snow storm.

masterbouncer · Jul 13, 2019

Do I get it right, the owners want to increase the revenue by making it a 18 game season but still want to pay the players for 16 games only?
Like, "Yes, we want to earn more but don't want to share it with those earning us the money"?

Yeah great idea

SBLIII · Jul 13, 2019

sphen22 said:
League's attepmt to slow brady down. Brady wont ever sit healthy.

Our superior depth would still get it done. Actually this would be good for us.

p8ryts · Jul 13, 2019

QuantumMechanic said:
If this idiot scheme actually happens, I could see basically conceding your first two non-conference games by playing all scrubs to get it all out of the way. Then you can play the other games with the players you want playing as opposed to probably always having at least some person out you don't want to be out.

I think that could be called EXHIBITION GAMES! The owners objective is more money. That's all they focus on.

BaconGrundleCandy · Jul 13, 2019

Coaches haven't figured out how to use their timeouts properly.

Doctor DDS · Jul 13, 2019

My guess is they end up with a 17 game schedule with an extra bye week making it a 19 week schedule. Gives the owners the extra 2 weeks of TV revenue and 1 extra gate. The players will get some sort of give back on the disciplinary process and will ultimately be happy to share in the increased revenue. Would also not be surprised to see the League go to more Monday night double headers with the early game starting at 7:00. I assume prime time games have increased gambling activity and that will add additional revenue which is the only real goal of the owners.

With the extra bye week the league should be able to solve its Thursday night game issue by scheduling teams off of their bye weeks. Challenge will be figuring out where to find that extra game on the schedule. Home/Away would no longer be equitable by team but I guess there are already cases where that is true with the London games. Do they partially solve this with more neutral site games? I assume the 17th game would be another non conference game aligned with prior year division standing as it would potentially add additional prime time game opponents (ie: Pats vs Rams could be added)

The 18/16 thing with players having to sit out is a cray gimmick. It would add some interesting strategies (do the Pats start Hoyer early in the year but have Brady ready to come in if the game does not go well or do they play Brady up until they have clinched later in the year?) As mentioned numerous times above the downside of poor TV match ups or teams tanking against certain opponents to "save" their starters would create a cluster.

borg · Jul 13, 2019

masterbouncer said:
Do I get it right, the owners want to increase the revenue by making it a 18 game season but still want to pay the players for 16 games only?
Like, "Yes, we want to earn more but don't want to share it with those earning us the money"?

Yeah great idea

It took 3 pages of posts before one enlightened poster begins to uncover the owner’s true intentions..... offer a plan that expands the pie but doesn’t share the extra slices and then let human nature take its usual course.
I give these owners lots of credit.... they operate like shrewd business men utilizing every bit of leverage and psychological warfare they possess.
Sweating the details of such a nonsensical plan misses the big picture of what the owners are trying to ultimately accomplish:

Dangling extra income opportunities (2 extra real games) then telling players they can’t have any is cruel and brilliant. Like dangling a juicy steak over a pit of starving hyenas and then waiting for an impulsive action.
The players and more importantly their greedy agents who represent a workforce whose careers average 4 years have choices to consider:

Play 4 meaningless preseason games and 16 regular season games ...aka... status quo.
Play 2 meaningless preseason games and 16 of 18 regular season games without additional financial benefit.... except for the additional players hired to fill empty slots.
Play 2 preseason and all 18 regular season games at a negotiated boosted wage.

Factor in the reality that more players will need to be paid in the 16 out of 18 scenario thereby reducing average wages of the top 53 (more players same size pie)

I see this expanded season concept as an attempt by owners to change the narrative and let player/agent greed naturally take hold. History has shown player union members don’t like giving up paychecks and they also don’t like ceding money over to newcomers just arriving in the league.

OT: owners are displaying heavy leverage tactics right now vs NFL officiating as well....terminating full time officiating positions just as negotiations begin.
Ruthless and brilliant

Ring 6 · Jul 13, 2019

QuantumMechanic said:
If this idiot scheme actually happens, I could see basically conceding your first two non-conference games by playing all scrubs to get it all out of the way. Then you can play the other games with the players you want playing as opposed to probably always having at least some person out you don't want to be out.

On the other hand why sit out players early when they might end up missing games due to injury?
The smart move would be to use the first half of the season to sit out players who are less than 100% giving them a recovery week, especially taking matchups into consideration.

Teams that mismanage this will end up sitting players early who end up missing even more games later at a point when they have to sit other players because if the rule and/or are decimated for the last month of the season.

Ring 6 · Jul 13, 2019

borg said:
It took 3 pages of posts before one enlightened poster begins to uncover the owner’s true intentions..... offer a plan that expands the pie but doesn’t share the extra slices and then let human nature take its usual course.
I give these owners lots of credit.... they operate like shrewd business men utilizing every bit of leverage and psychological warfare they possess.
Sweating the details of such a nonsensical plan misses the big picture of what the owners are trying to ultimately accomplish:

Dangling extra income opportunities (2 extra real games) then telling players they can’t have any is cruel and brilliant. Like dangling a juicy steak over a pit of starving hyenas and then waiting for an impulsive action.
The players and more importantly their greedy agents who represent a workforce whose careers average 4 years have choices to consider:

Play 4 meaningless preseason games and 16 regular season games ...aka... status quo.
Play 2 meaningless preseason games and 16 of 18 regular season games without additional financial benefit.... except for the additional players hired to fill empty slots.
Play 2 preseason and all 18 regular season games at a negotiated boosted wage.

Factor in the reality that more players will need to be paid in the 16 out of 18 scenario thereby reducing average wages of the top 53 (more players same size pie)

I see this expanded season concept as an attempt by owners to change the narrative and let player/agent greed naturally take hold. History has shown player union members don’t like giving up paychecks and they also don’t like ceding money over to newcomers just arriving in the league.

OT: owners are displaying heavy leverage tactics right now vs NFL officiating as well....terminating full time officiating positions just as negotiations begin.
Ruthless and brilliant

This is not accurate.
Since the players receive a share of revenue it doesn’t matter how many games each one plays in they will receive their share of the additional revenues.

It would seem in this case however the result would be more players getting paid rather than the same amount of players being paid more. But in reality considering those extra players will be low earners it would be a combination of both.

The cap is a function of revenues not per game pay per player.

BaconGrundleCandy · Jul 13, 2019

AndyJohnson said:
On the other hand why sit out players early when they might end up missing games due to injury?
The smart move would be to use the first half of the season to sit out players who are less than 100% giving them a recovery week, especially taking matchups into consideration.

Teams that mismanage this will end up sitting players early who end up missing even more games later at a point when they have to sit other players because if the rule and/or are decimated for the last month of the season.

This is where I'm at too. Why sit a player early on when they could get hurt the next game & be done for the year?

I think playing the full 16 is what the majority of teams, if not all will do.

Ring 6 · Jul 13, 2019

BaconGrundleCandy said:
This is where I'm at too. Why sit a player early on when they could get hurt the next game & be done for the year?

I think playing the full 16 is what the majority of teams, if not all will do.

But then your healthy players end up sitting out key December games with playoff implications.
It’s just a terrible, terrible idea.

BaconGrundleCandy · Jul 13, 2019

AndyJohnson said:
But then your healthy players end up sitting out key December games with playoff implications.
It’s just a terrible, terrible idea.

Its an awful idea. Thursday night games, London, this... NFL isn't about the player or his safety.

If QBs arent exempt backup QB just become a top 3 position in terms of FA/Draft/Trade. No coach, team or players will be happy "giving" 2 games away w a lesser player.

QuantumMechanic · Jul 13, 2019

masterbouncer said:
Do I get it right, the owners want to increase the revenue by making it a 18 game season but still want to pay the players for 16 games only?
Like, "Yes, we want to earn more but don't want to share it with those earning us the money"?

The players will be paid for the extra games.

The salary cap and salary floor are set as percentages of revenue. The extra money the NFL gets from the networks for having a longer season increases those revenues, thus increasing the salary cap and floor and thus player salaries as player contracts roll over.

So while they'll still only get 16 game checks, those checks will be bigger.

conway · Jul 13, 2019

If I ran the NFLPA, I'd agree to it with a bigger piece of the pie and bigger rosters and practice squads. And I'd insist that instead of 16, let's just let everyone play 14. Or 12. But still be paid for 16.

And it would be awesome for the Pats. They have a solid backup QB, a deep roster, and the smartest coach.

I wouldn't sit anyone valuable for the first half of the season. Injuries are going to cause the majority of players to miss a game or two anyway. I guess one benefit might be that players who try to play through injuries would be more likely to take the opportunity to miss a couple games.

But... paying big bucks to see backup QBs play each other would be infuriating.

Uh-oh. Looks like the NFL is seriously considering the 18/16 concept

PatsFans.com Supporter

Practice Squad Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

Football Atheist

PatsFans.com Supporter

Football Atheist

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

Not the kind of guy to say I told you so ...

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Not the kind of guy to say I told you so ...

PatsFans.com Supporter

Not the kind of guy to say I told you so ...

Burn it all down!

Practice Squad Player

Similar threads