Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by QuantumMechanic, Jul 12, 2019.
They already tried the two bye schedule in the 90s. Not sure why they’d go back to it
I could be mistaken but IIRC they only did it for one year and it was before the advent of the cap. A lot has changed in the past 25 years
PFK - You're assuming that the owners would be willing to part with much more of the extra money that the league would get from the additional 2 games. Remember, gate receipts are a pittance in comparison to the TV contracts. Based on what I can find, the TV deals all run through 2022.
- Even if the league expands the number of games, I don't believe the TV revenue will increase until 2022 when the current contracts expire.
- Doing the math, you need 1 reserve player for every 8 players.. However, there are 12-15 distinct positions on offense and defense if you exclude QB,K,P, LS. Those positions are RB, FB, OT, OG, OC, TE, WR, NT/DT, DE, OLB, ILB/MLB, CB, Slot CB, FS, SS. You would need a minimum of 12 extra players above and beyond your game day roster, by my estimates.
- I could easily see the owners saying that they'd eliminate the PS and just go to 63 man rosters. The problem with that is that it's a significant increase in salary and signing bonus money. Instead of 53, it's another 10 men that count a minimum of $510K (in 2020) instead of a minimum of $8.4K (in 2020) (Note: My guess is that minimum salary would be $525K -$550K in 2021). That's an extra $3.5-$4.5M dollars per team that would be spent. That's approximately $176M in extra salaries that would have to come out of the player's portion. That's almost the equivalent of 1 team's total salary cap today.
I also don't believe we'd see deeper talented rosters. One only has to look at the NHL to see how adding extra pro level slots (by means of expansion teams) has only diluted the product and not improved it.
I’d bet my bottom dollar there is no way this comes to pass. Look at the trouble the NBA has with teams resting stars. You think the NFL would come along and *mandate* resting stars? No way.
It failed, but not because of anything to do with the cap. You just do not have enough marquee games to go around. Sure there are 4 more teams today, but there’s also more TV slots (Thursday night, early Sunday morning)
I wasn't referencing the cap as a reason why the 2 bye week experiment failed but rather as the revenue sharing component of it as an incentive to both owners and players to now make it work.
Not even trolling I kind of like the 16 game limit idea because it's exactly the sort of thing that Belichick will turn into a strength. If they implemented it I bet you we'd go undefeated in games where we rested top 10 players and we'd end up showcasing some 2nd string QB who nets us a 1st or 2nd round pick, etc.
I dunno, thank****ingfully the NFL isn't MLB so I'm fine with not being tied to tradition and stuff and I'm the lone person on the planet, apparently, who is intrigued by the competitive advantage a coaching staff like ours would turn the 16 game limit into.
Lower tier community college freshman business administration class spitballing sessions have consistently produced better ideas than the NFL brain trust...
I can’t imagine the NFLPA signing off on this without major concessions. Sounds like it’s the very start of negotiations for it.
I doubt the league thought this had a prayer of being accepted when they threw it out there as is, but eventually they’ll find a way to get it done, I think.
They should expand rosters from 54 to 60 players or atleast make gameday rosters the whole allowable 54 not a restricted 45
I think most of the public is on the Players' side here. I know the league wants it (badly) but the concessions they are going to have to give might make it not even worth their while...
A watered-down product no matter how you spin it.
The first thing to came to mind when I read about the TV contract was, "OK, that makes sense. So just start the 18 game season in 2022, and it would be a great bargaining chip in the negotiations with the networks, more money for the players, more money for the teams, more money for the networks.
As for the rest, they are also good points, but imho, they are all points that could be worked out. Whether QB's and kicking specialists could be exempt is negotiable. But that's just one point. BTW- personally I'd rather that QB's NOT be exempt, but I can see the need for exempting the punter and kicker. But that's just me.
I'm sure one of our more mathematically inclined members could come up with the exact number of plays that would have be to sit each game in order for a say 56-63 man roster to give everyone a two game rest. I'm sure I could do it if were willing to do the work.....and I'm not. . But let's say the number is 6. I don't think that the level of play would be drop because 6 guys didn't play a specific game.
As for the increased payment costs of adding 6-10 additional players at 3-5MM more per year is a small cost that COULD be mitigated a bit by simply paying those 6-10 plays at a different level. For example, currently a PS member makes about $85K/yr. ( A number that puts him in the top 95% of Americans btw) I don't think either the owners of PA would complain much if they doubled that number for those 6-10 players at the bottom of the rosters. Just a thought.
Clearly there would have to be a lot of thinking about the details of this plan and that is another reason holding of until the 2022 season would be a good idea.
It is easy to simply dismiss the idea, but sooner or later an 18 game season is going to happen. So given this reality, is there a better idea out there than having an 18 game season where the players only play 16? If there is, Id like to hear it.
That's a lazy man's reply Tunie. Was it "watered down" when Gronk and others were injured an couldn't play. You are talking about 5 or 6 guys a game and not all of them would be starters. In fact most of them would end up being guys that can't play that week anyway.
When Brady was suspended, were those 4 games LESS exciting or interesting to the fans. By your standards we should all be pissed because the game is now "watered down" because we have to watch some guy named Lac0sse instead of Gronk. (hyperbole)
This is FOOTBALL, a team game where the BEST team wins with a 53 man roster not a 22 man one. You should know that, being a follower of this team for so long. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Again....this is an idea that would make roster manipulations much more complex, and thus be an advantage to us because we have the greatest roster manipulator in the league.
I don't think it's a lazy reply, I'm calling an obvious money-grab for what it is. Your examples are incidentals, Ken. This NFL proposal would be by design -- MANDATING teams to sit front-line players and messing with chemistry/continuity to the game's detriment while shortchanging fans who pay to see the best of the best. I understand you're trying to cast a positive light on it and if this bad idea is enacted we'll all be forced to adopt a similar approach or bail. But the NFL has a solid formula in place that still has plenty of room for improvement without the "more, more, more" of expanding the regular season while forcing subpar talent into the mix.
Goodell's ongoing battle cry for years has been that four preseason games are too much. Perhaps they are, but I would be more than happy to see two of them dropped altogether -- perhaps replaced by scrimmages -- and still pay the same price for my season tickets without expanding the regular season.
Five minutes is overly generous - seems more like thirty seconds. Easily the single dumbest, most reprehensible idea in all the history of professional sports.
Again, it will be 5 or 6 guys per week, and (again) the list will be likely filled by guys who can't play that week anyways. And again, fans go and see back ups almost EVERY week because of injuries and suspensions. And again - the added obstacles this would entail would be an advantage to this organization.
Finally this is coming whether you or I like it or not.....and yes it is a money grab, but it will be one that for the players, networks and owners share EQUALLY and that's why it will happen. It won't affect ticket holders since they are paying for 18 games already. So rather than find flaws in my observations, give us how you would set it up.
Right now it looks like you'd play the 18 game season just by making them play 2 more game and dropping 2 preseason games and hope for the best. I believe if THAT were to occur then you'd end up seeing more backups on the field by the end of a season than if it were done the way I propose. (actually its not MY proposal, I was just discussing one that the NFL was floating)
Right now, the way the game is played its the healthiest teams that end up playing in the conference title game. So if you think its a game of attrition now, by making the top teams play up to 22 games in a season, the game will look like Napolean's army coming back from Russia.
So. T, how would an `18 game season?
The idiots who run the NFL just can’t resist shooting themselves in the foot. It’s a miracle that they haven’t completely driven the league into the ground with their greed and stupidity.
No, I didn't say anything advocating an 18-game regular season. I said drop two preseason games, keep a 16-game regular season and charge me the same for my season tickets. I'm not taking issue with your solutions to dealing with a bad situation (18-game regular season). I'm against the bad situation itself. "More" doesn't always mean better.
I think any idea would be better than this one.
The math: 60 players need to sit out a combined 120 games over 18 weeks, so each week would require, on average, 6.666.
That’s more than 10% of your team ineligible each game.
If we go with the idea that about 27 players are “starters” (primary players across all 3 downs) that means you are without 3 starters every single game.
Managing who you “disqualify” may have more to do with who wins than who is the better team.
Separate names with a comma.