NFLPA says, "18 game season... no way"

[oldrover]

If you want to argue for no football by all means do so, my only contention has been that the season is already long enough and it shouldn't be expanded. You can take that to any extreme you want but all it does is point out how weak your argument is. The players are right, the season is long enough and the evidence supports them completely. The simple fact that you claim that more games won't mean more injuries shows just how far off the deep end you really are. You know it will mean more injuries and shorter careers but you just don't care, and that's the real bottom line, and saying that they should just create larger rosters demonstrates that without question.

How is arguing for 14 games or less arguing for no football? I'm saying if you believe this schedule is too damaging, you should be in favor of a shorter season. Isn't that logical? Wait... I forgot who I'm talking to.

 

[Ivan]

By the way, I started this thread NOT from the FANS' perspective... I'm okay with 16 games. I started it from the union perspective... that just saying reflexively no was a missed opportunity for the UNION. But it's fascinating to see people on their high horse here... you'd think the NFL was abusing players like Michael Vick abused pit bulls.

You created a debate which pits more money against better health, which means that anyone taking the side of better health is inherently taking "high ground" as better health is obviously a more moral position to take in this debate. As far as you "taking the union perspective" that's crap, as the union is and has been against this all along because they know the damage the game does to its players, what you are taking is an owners position. Does that mean the players want to end the game, obviously not, but it does mean they have seen the seasons go to the furthest point they can go to and aren't willing to trade money for health. They choose to play the game and assume the risks that go with that, but that doesn't mean that they should always trade money for the well being of their players and they are right to draw a line at this point. You on the other hand are making an argument that there is no point to draw a line at and that they should always trade money for health and that they can just use more players to replace those who get injured along the way. For some reason you cannot grasp the inherent immorality of that argument, but that's your issue not mine. I love football and miss it when it's gone but I'm not willing to trade better health fore the players for more entertainment, and all expanding rosters does is dilute the product even more and to me that makes the league worse not better no matter how many games they go to.

 

[Ivan]

How is arguing for 14 games or less arguing for no football? I'm saying if you believe this schedule is too damaging, you should be in favor of a shorter season. Isn't that logical? Wait... I forgot who I'm talking to.

I think what you forgot is who is talking as i am the one being rational and logical, you are the one who just wants more and doesn't care what the price is. You started a discussion about expanding the season and now you are saying that those who don't agree must want it shortened and all that does is show that you lost the argument.

 

[oldrover]

If you disagree that expanding the roster to 60 players is a good idea, fine.

If you disagree that the NFL should pay more for players pensions and health care, fine.

If you disagree that the players should be paid more, fine.

But you're also saying the season is too dangerous right now. Yet you're not making the case to shorten the season or change the game in any way to make it less dangerous. You just think that the status quo is the way to go. So if you don't want changes, AND you think the season is too harmful as is, you either don't care about the players as much as you claim, or you're not being intellectually honest.

And I'm losing nothing here. I'm fine with 16 games, as I said. I'm making an argument for the union, that they're missing an opportunity to really impact their membership in a positive way.

 

[pctronics0072]

The slippery slope does not really work. There is a proposal to EXTEND the season, but I did not see one for shortening the season, did you? Therefore, many are saying that they would not be in favor of EXTENDING the season as that would add risk for what in my mind would be minimal benefits. As the number of games increases, the importance of a single game decreases. Again, remember there is no proposal to shorten the season so that is not something I am going to talk about.

I am also in the opinion that playoffs do not need to be expanded. I think it was said best in the Incredibles when it was said that when everyone is special, no one is. We do not need close to one half of the teams as playoff teams as it decreases the prestige of being in the playoffs.

 

[Ivan]

If you disagree that expanding the roster to 60 players is a good idea, fine.

If you disagree that the NFL should pay more for players pensions and health care, fine.

If you disagree that the players should be paid more, fine.

But you're also saying the season is too dangerous right now. Yet you're not making the case to shorten the season or change the game in any way to make it less dangerous. You just think that the status quo is the way to go. So if you don't want changes, AND you think the season is too harmful as is, you either don't care about the players as much as you claim, or you're not being intellectually honest.

And I'm losing nothing here. I'm fine with 16 games, as I said. I'm making an argument for the union, that they're missing an opportunity to really impact their membership in a positive way.

You are simply making sh.t up.

1) I disagree with expanding rosters to offset player injuries from a longer season. I never made any argument against expanding rosters without going to an 18 game season.

2) I never argued against more money or better health care for players, you are simply saying that those who disagree with you on expanding the season must oppose better health care and pensions. Weak.


3) I never made any argument for shortening the season you claimed that those who opposed your argument for expanding it must then be for shortening it because you lost the argument for expanding it. Weak.


You are making the owners argument and trying to pretend its for the players, it's as weak as it gets and unless you can come up with a real argument this one is done and you lost all the way around.

 

[Miguel]

I started it from the union perspective... that just saying reflexively no was a missed opportunity for the UNION.

As if, the union has not been thinking about this issue for awhile now. It was clear on a recent conference call with the NFLPA's leadership that the union is dead set against 18 games and that it has been for years and will continue to do so.

When you say that you are "making an argument for the union, that they're missing an opportunity to really impact their membership in a positive way", you are in effect NOT looking at this issue from the union's perspective, but from yours. Yes, it is "fascinating to see people on their high horse here". I happen to think that you are one of those people.

 

[Deus Irae]

It's fascinating to see the status quo seekers use only emotion and insults in their arguments. Their position is, "Players get hurt." Well, if the goal is no players getting hurt, let's go to flag football.

The rational person looks at both sides and sees how everyone can win.

Expand the rosters to 60 people. Win for the association, win for the teams.

Increase salaries. Players right now don't get paid for exhibition games. This would eliminate two of those games, and the union can easily hold firm to get a 12.5% bump in all salaries, MINIMUM.

Plus, the union could also demand increased NFL pension and health care funding. And the league is already bumping up its safety measures... concussion protocols, limiting kickoff returns... perhaps more can be done there.

But of course, it's easier for the self-anointed here to point fingers and play Chicken Little. "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" LOL

Only emotion and insults? To the contrary. The emotion and insults are just bonuses that go along with the facts.

• Fact: Players don't want it
• Fact: There's no overwhelming call for it among the fan base
• Fact: More games = more injuries
• Fact: Solutions such as benching starters will fundamentally alter the game
• Fact: The league has been issuing all sorts of safety changes, which is an acknowledgment that the game is dangerous, but they've clearly got a long way to go
• Fact: The long term damage to a lot of players, even from the shorter schedules, has been documented, and the average lifespan of an NFL player is about 20 years shorter than his non-playing counterparts

The National Football League players union, alarmed that its members die nearly 20 years earlier on average than other American men, has selected Harvard University to oversee a $100 million accelerated research initiative aimed at treating and ultimately preventing the broad-ranging health problems plaguing the athletes....

... The result is a dramatically shortened life span: While white men in the United States on average live to age 78 and African-American men to about 70, “it appears that professional football players in both the United States and Canada have life expectancies in the mid- to late-50s,” Harvard researchers wrote in a summary of their project.

NFL players union and Harvard team up on landmark study of football injuries and illness - Boston.com

Emotion and insults: You have no idea what the hell you're talking about. You're just a sucker that the owners want to exploit, because all the billions in the world will never be enough for some of them.

 

[oldrover]

As if, the union has not been thinking about this issue for awhile now. It was clear on a recent conference call with the NFLPA's leadership that the union is dead set against 18 games and that it has been for years and will continue to do so.

When you say that you are "making an argument for the union, that they're missing an opportunity to really impact their membership in a positive way", you are in effect NOT looking at this issue from the union's perspective, but from yours. Yes, it is "fascinating to see people on their high horse here". I happen to think that you are one of those people.

I would respectfully disagree about the 'high horse' part. I'm making what I feel is a logical argument given the reality of pro football. Yes, the union must take care of the health and well-being of its membership. But whether we're at 12, 14, 16, or 18 games, players will be injured. Period. A union's goal is ALSO increasing and expanding its membership, and their pay and benefits. So if players WILL be hurt... no matter what (barring flag football or some radical change)... the union must deal with that reality in a way that protects them AND serves their financial interests.

Adding two games adds a BOATLOAD of money to the equation. I believe the players could REALLY go to town in addressing both health and financial issues by leveraging the owners' interest in that revenue.

Increasing the roster size dramatically, their long-term benefits, and their paychecks, while CONTINUING and AMPLIFYING the ongoing alerts for medical concern i.e. concussion, would do that. Probably a lot of other things that I haven't thought of.

Although, as a bargaining position, maybe it's NOT a bad idea to say "no way" at first.

And of course, all this is just one humble fan's opinion. In the EXTREME MINORITY, it appears. C'est la vie.

EDIT: I would also add that in these arguments, sometimes spirits can rise, and obviously I'm not immune to that. So I do apologize for any untoward comments I might have made along the way.

 

[Miguel]

I would respectfully disagree about the 'high horse' part.

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[oldrover]

We will have to agree to disagree.

Okay...

...I'm really off it now.

 

[SB39]

As if, the union has not been thinking about this issue for awhile now. It was clear on a recent conference call with the NFLPA's leadership that the union is dead set against 18 games and that it has been for years and will continue to do so.

Actually, in the last CBA, the owners had the unilateral right to expand the season to 18 so when that CBA was ratified, this was not something the players had any problems with.

18 games is inevitable in the long run. Everything else you see is just posturing.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Actually, in the last CBA, the owners had the unilateral right to expand the season to 18 so when that CBA was ratified, this was not something the players had any problems with.

18 games is inevitable in the long run. Everything else you see is just posturing.

Players & doctors knew far more about health & the shocking lack of player longevity when the new CBA was signed than they knew back in the 20th century.

I'm really disturbed to read that average player lifespan is the 50s not 70s like for us who never played in the NFL.

 

[Miguel]

Actually, in the last CBA, the owners had the unilateral right to expand the season to 18 so when that CBA was ratified, this was not something the players had any problems with.

18 games is inevitable in the long run. Everything else you see is just posturing.

May I suggest downloading the CBA
at http://www.patscap.com/cba.pdf or at
https://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/2011CBA.pdf

and review Article 31 which says

ARTICLE 31
ADDITIONAL REGULAR SEASON GAMES
The League and/or Clubs may increase the number of regular season games per Team above the standard of sixteen (16) only with NFLPA approval, which may be withheld at the NFLP A's sole discretion.

Article 31 completely contradicts what you have posted.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Miguel, I believe he's talking about the PRIOR Tagliabu CBA
See post # 113

 

[Miguel]

Miguel, I believe he's talking about the PRIOR Tagliabu CBA
See post # 113

I also have a copy of the 2006 CBA. I could not find in it what SB39 claims.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I also have a copy of the 2006 CBA. I could not find in it what SB39 claims.

Miguel my man, do you ever rest?

Contribution made.

 

[Miguel]

I also have a copy of the 2006 CBA. I could not find in it what SB39 claims.

The 2006 CBA said
The League and/or Clubs cannot at any time during this Agreement increase the number of regular season games per team from the standard of sixteen (16) without providing ninety (90) days notice in writing to the NFLPA and thereafter negotiating with the NFLPA with regard to additional compensation to be paid to players for additional regular season games. If the parties
are unable to agree on additional compensation within thirty (30) days after notice has been given, the issue of additional compensation may be submitted by either party to the Impartial Arbitrator under Article XXVII (Impartial Arbitrator) for an expedited hearing and a final and binding decision. The Impartial Arbitrator will have the full authority to decide the amount of additional compensation to which the players will be entitled. In no event will the regular season be extended during this Agreement to include more than
eighteen (18) games per team."

Compare that language to the 2011 CBA
ARTICLE 31
ADDITIONAL REGULAR SEASON GAMES
The League and/or Clubs may increase the number of regular season games per Team above the standard of sixteen (16) only with NFLPA approval, which may be withheld at the NFLPA's sole discretion.

and it is rather clear that the players are so against 18 games that they collectively bargained against it.

 

[Observer]

I throw my morality and compassion out the window every Sunday I sit in front of the TV. I honestly think it is quite hypocritical to exhibit great concern for player safety while advocating to preserve the game in its current form. The only way I rationalize it is that the players earn their salary in exchange for known work hazard. Once I shelve the moral concern which is the same whether it is one game or eighteen, as a fan I know I would enjoy more games and I believe that steps could be taken to minimize any issues related to extended playing time. If that means 'starters' on the bench, I think that is perfectly fine, just adds another element to overall strategy.

 

[SB39]

May I suggest downloading the CBA
at http://www.patscap.com/cba.pdf or at
https://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/2011CBA.pdf

Thank you for the suggestion, but could you please explain to me why I should download a CBA I was not referring to?