billsfan89 Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 This just reinforces a point that both players, fans, and it seems owners already agree on. I think that if the NFL did want to do a creative way to add more weeks to the season without adding games they should try adding a second bye week again. I know they did this circa 1993 for one season and quickly gave up BUT the NFL is a hell of a lot more popular now than it was back then perhaps stretching out the season via more bye weeks would work again. Also a second bye helps players stay healthy and come back from injury. Also a revamping of IR is a big need you can't have teams IRing players that could come back and play 2-3 months later simply because the team needs the roster spot. NFL should have a disabled list a 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 12 weeks or IR for the whole season. A player goes on the DL for 4 weeks the team opens up that players roster spot for 4 weeks but the player has to sit out the complete 4 weeks. (Also if a cap is reinstated that players cap number isn't counted for those weeks). It really makes too much sense not to do something like that an all or nothing affair like IR is a really a bad system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderstealer Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 I'd be happy just getting the Toronto game back....grrrr Toronto doesen't want it either. Unless the teams are winning teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Well then, maybe you should not only question talk radio, but those that participate in it. The bottom line is that an 18 game schedule was not sought by the owners for the fans. It was for the profits, all while they also sought a lessening of the players share of revenue. Pretty much a double edged sword. Then throw in the wear an tear on the players. This isn't a video game, the beatings they take are real. Even if the owners vote to expand rosters, again, it would only further dilute what the current players get. It's a loss, loss for the players, short a simple. What? Question Joe from Cheektowaga's opinion of the Sabres power play and the NFL's labor issues? Never!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) Yes, either way works for me. I hate paying for preseason games. I never ever go to them.....But, we know they are not going to reduce it from 20 games (16 + 4) to 18 games (16 + 2) because it's lost revenue. So, I want the 18 game schedule bad. The weird part of all this to me was that for years and years, talk radio and fans all talked about wanting more regular and less preseason. Now that the owners proposed it, everybody is against it, because a few media members came out against it....We're such lemmings. What I get out of this is you want more quantity, less quality to offset the reaming you've been taking by opportunistic owners using preseason as an excuse to jack up the price of season tickets. Edited March 25, 2011 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 What I get out of this is you want more quantity, less quality to offset the reaming you've been taking by opportunistic owners using preseason as an excuse to jack up the price of season tickets. I don't think the quality is going to be effected much, if at all.......But, all I really want is to not have to pay for 2 preseason games at full price, which I give away, and then in a year like this - only get 7 regular season games. 22.2% of the price of my tickets are thrown away immediately. At least a year like last year, Toronto takes one preseason game off our hands and I can live with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 All that tels me is that they were pass happy. YOU NEED to be able to survive 20 games to be a champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 The owners pulled it off the table because the union wouldn't allow it on the table. Keeping the status quo for two years is another way of keeping the issue alive, even if it is down the road. The players are not going for the deal under any circumstances because it is unsafe and creates more risks that jeopardizes the length of one's career and the long term health after one's career. The owners can bluster all they want. The deal that was on the table is not going to be diminished if they want a negotiated deal. What the players give up they will get back from the owners in some form. What the owners give up they will get back from the players in some form. In the end the teeter-totter will be balanced. From what I understand the framework for a deal is in place. The last minute offer made by the owners while the players were leaving the table did demonstrate some real movement. Assuming the judge lifts the injunction and orders the parties back to the table the chasm is at a manageable level where a deal can be made. Am I being too optimistic? i don't know if a "framework of a deal," as you put it was in place. and the NFL has actually come out and stated that it's last offer could be pulled. as for the "union not allowing it on the table," that's not how negotiations work. both sides can put anything on the table, whether or not the other side likes it or not. there was a deadlock, here, that may or not be broken come April 6. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts