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

[SB39]

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.

Yes, but their opposition is a relatively new phenomenon. As your post proves, it was no less than a decade ago that they collectively bargained away the right to the owners to unilaterally decide to increase the season to 18. Yes, they owners would have had to pay for it (and it likely would have gone to arbitration), but it was obviously something the players were, at one point in recent time, comfortable having the owners make the final decision on.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Yes, but their opposition is a relatively new phenomenon. As your post proves, it was no less than a decade ago that they collectively bargained away the right to the owners to unilaterally decide to increase the season to 18. Yes, they owners would have had to pay for it (and it likely would have gone to arbitration), but it was obviously something the players were, at one point in recent time, comfortable having the owners make the final decision on.

One more time for the slow learners.
The knowledge of the seriously deleterious impact of concussions, etc. and the severely reduced lifespan of players was NOT known at that time.

 

[SB39]

One more time for the slow learners.

Yup. Someone in this forum dared to have an opinion contrary to the majority. Cue the personal attacks.

The knowledge of the seriously deleterious impact of concussions, etc. and the severely reduced lifespan of players was NOT known at that time.

Where is the evidence that the Patriots, who have averaged 18 games over the past 11 seasons, have any higher incidence of concussions or injuries as compared to other teams who haven't made the playoffs over that span (or only played a small handful of postseason games)...?

Furthermore, the last CBA was signed 8 years ago. We're talking 8 years ago, not 30. Yes our medicine is advancing all the time, but 8 years ago, we were well aware of concussion risk in the NFL and the ill-effects thereof. Mike Webster (you can google him since I doubt you know who he is) died 4 years before that CBA, and that incident probably moreso than any other brought this issue to the forefront.... so it was very much a topic everyone was well aware of in 2006.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Always the victim

 

[SB39]

Always the victim

Please feel free to respond intelligently to any of the points I've actually made at any time now.

 

[Miguel]

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

I thought that you were referring to the 2011 CBA.

 

[Miguel]

Yes, but their opposition is a relatively new phenomenon. As your post proves, it was no less than a decade ago that they collectively bargained away the right to the owners to unilaterally decide to increase the season to 18. Yes, they owners would have had to pay for it (and it likely would have gone to arbitration), but it was obviously something the players were, at one point in recent time, comfortable having the owners make the final decision on.

Why does it matter when the NFLPA adopted their current stance? 18 games is obviously "something the players have problems with" now.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Please feel free to respond intelligently to any of the points I've actually made at any time now.

I had done so.
You might try reading.

 

[oldrover]

Why does it matter when the NFLPA adopted their current stance? 18 games is obviously "something the players have problems with" now.

Well, if they were open to it before, then were persuaded to be against it, it's possible the pendulum can swing back, given the right circumstances.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Well, if they were open to it before, then were persuaded to be against it, it's possible the pendulum can swing back, given the right circumstances.

In other words, "My argument has been refuted by the facts you cited. Maybe everyone will change their thinking to match my obtuse refutation of current scientific fact."

OK. It COULD happen. Really doubt it.

 

[SB39]

Why does it matter when the NFLPA adopted their current stance? 18 games is obviously "something the players have problems with" now.

I was responding to a comment that said the "union is dead set against 18 games and that it has been for years." The usage of the word "years" in that sentence is technically correct, but IMHO it implies a longer time period than than going back only to 2011...... so I was establishing that as recently as 8 years ago - a very short time period when considering these things - the union bargained the right to an 18-game season to the owners' unilateral authority.

 

[SB39]

Well, if they were open to it before, then were persuaded to be against it, it's possible the pendulum can swing back, given the right circumstances.

True dat.

The pendulum can and will swing back. 18 games is inevitable. The almighty dollar will win the day.

 

[Miguel]

True dat.

The pendulum can and will swing back. 18 games is inevitable. The almighty dollar will win the day.

It is clear to me that the players gave up money in the 2011 CBA for a better quality of life. With the unexpected increase in the cap (123m to 133m) the players can now have both.

 

[SalemPats]

At first i wanted an 18 game season and 2 pre-season. But with all of the injuries i think 16 is better. Maybe they compromise and go with 17 and 3 pre-season games

 

[SB39]

It is clear to me that the players gave up money in the 2011 CBA for a better quality of life. With the unexpected increase in the cap (123m to 133m) the players can now have both.

IMHO, I don't think the players gave up a single penny in that CBA that they knew they weren't already going to lose anyway. So they got certain concessions in exchange for those percentage points they knew they'd lose no matter what.

Ironically, some of those "better quality of life" changes have been blamed by many - including Belichick - for creating more injuries.

 

[oldrover]

At first i wanted an 18 game season and 2 pre-season. But with all of the injuries i think 16 is better. Maybe they compromise and go with 17 and 3 pre-season games

A 17-game season... the math on that would be funk-a-trocious. But interesting.... who's the extra game against? Out of conference? In conference? In division? Imagine playing the Jets 3 times in the regular season.

 

[oldrover]

IMHO, I don't think the players gave up a single penny in that CBA that they knew they weren't already going to lose anyway. So they got certain concessions in exchange for those percentage points they knew they'd lose no matter what.

Ironically, some of those "better quality of life" changes have been blamed by many - including Belichick - for creating more injuries.

Gronk's injury last year was a direct result of those rule changes. "The law of unintended consequences"...

 

[Ivan]

Gronk's injury last year was a direct result of those rule changes. "The law of unintended consequences"...

Gronks injury was the result of a blatant cheap shot shoulder directly to the knee, there isn't a person on the planet who would have come away from that without a serious knee injury, blaming it on offseason rules is frigging idiotic.

 

[oldrover]

Gronks injury was the result of a blatant cheap shot shoulder directly to the knee, there isn't a person on the planet who would have come away from that without a serious knee injury, blaming it on offseason rules is frigging idiotic.

From the Boston Globe:

Are NFL Rules to Blame for Gronkowski's Injury?

 

[Ivan]

From the Boston Globe:

Are NFL Rules to Blame for Gronkowski's Injury?

I don't buy it and never have, he could have gone low to tackle him but made no effort to do that, he simply launched his shoulder into his knee.

On the other hand i was under the impression what you were referring to was a continuation of the offseason contact CBA changes and not the head shot rules, so my post was really a response to that.