Jump to content
nucci

Report: NFL owners pitch 18-game schedule

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

That may be the compromise the league is willing to make.  But what do the non-potheads get?

 

I wonder how they handled it when they increased number of games to 18.

 

...just a wild hunch.......player would get 18/16 of their annual contract amount...eliminating 2 pre-season games would be a non-consideration IMO because so many play a series or two anyhow......sure the financially beleaguered Owners would argue differently (COUGH)........

Edited by OldTimeAFLGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The players need to only play 16 of the 18 games...I hate that idea.

 

I want an 18 game seasons.....the other ideas I like that have been brought up:  Expand the gameday roster and the total roster and go with 2 bye weeks.  Only 2 preaseason games..or get rid of the preseason totally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just remembered the USFL regular season was 18 games long. I don't know how many preseason games, if any, they played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Gugny said:

I like the idea of 18 games.

 

I don't see why it's such a hardship on players' bodies.  Especially if they force each player to play no more than 16 games.

 

Also ... how have all those perennial playoff teams survived all these years?  They've played up to 19 games.

 

How can hockey players in the NHL get through 82 games of a more physically demanding sport?

 

Stop testing for marijuana and the players won't have a problem with 18 games at all.

They can get high as **** for two of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

NFL Players bodies can't take an 18 game season. You would need 70 man rosters. I love watching games, so as a fan I am all for it, but right now many teams can barely stay healthy for 16. The roster expansion would be key. I really don't think the players association should vote against increasing the season by 10% if you added 30% more jobs. I do question how much small market cities like Buffalo would have to jack up its prices to pay for that though....

Edited by Locomark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Locomark said:

NFL Players bodies can't take an 18 game season. You would need 70 man rosters. I love watching games, so as a fan I am all for it, but right now many teams can barely stay healthy for 16. The roster expansion would be key. I really don't think the players association should vote against increasing the season by 10% if you added 30% more jobs. I do question how much small market cities like Buffalo would have to jack up its prices to pay for that though....

 

Roster expansion helps for positions that rotate but does not help for players who play every snap.  What about kickers, long snappers and punters?  Are they to use substitutes there?

  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

Roster expansion helps for positions that rotate but does not help for players who play every snap.  What about kickers, long snappers and punters?  Are they to use substitutes there?

Kickers/Punter rarely get contact.  Its more concerning about key players like the QB.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Locomark said:

Kickers/Punter rarely get contact.  Its more concerning about key players like the QB.

 

 

Tell that to our kicker who was run into by Seattle player and referee could not even get call right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Locomark said:

NFL Players bodies can't take an 18 game season. You would need 70 man rosters. I love watching games, so as a fan I am all for it, but right now many teams can barely stay healthy for 16. The roster expansion would be key. I really don't think the players association should vote against increasing the season by 10% if you added 30% more jobs. I do question how much small market cities like Buffalo would have to jack up its prices to pay for that though....

 

Thats the idea, drastically reduces the chance of a man getting to his pension

 

let alone few agency

 

Saves $$ for the owners

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Limeaid said:

 

Do you play backups on road so crowd at hone does not complain they paid full price for seeing backups play?

You do understand that players get hurt and take a game off in other sports?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

Roster expansion helps for positions that rotate but does not help for players who play every snap.  What about kickers, long snappers and punters?  Are they to use substitutes there?

 

It's not even just those positions.  Return guys, gunners, how do you rotate the OL guys.

It's going to water down the competition and be a nightmare for Head Coaches.

 

What if you plan on your starting TE to sit that week and the 2nd string TE gets nicked up in practice.

Now you are forced to start the 3rd string TE.

What if that scenario happens to a punt return guy and the 3rd string guy fumbles 3 punts?

Fans (especially fantasy ((which I am not)) and Vegas bettors) will be pissed.

 

There will be constant criticism from the fans about who the HC should of sat or should of played for each game.

 

It's a stupid idea and should not be implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can barely put competent men out there for 1/3 of roster slots as it is

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Locomark said:

NFL Players bodies can't take an 18 game season. You would need 70 man rosters. I love watching games, so as a fan I am all for it, but right now many teams can barely stay healthy for 16. The roster expansion would be key. I really don't think the players association should vote against increasing the season by 10% if you added 30% more jobs. I do question how much small market cities like Buffalo would have to jack up its prices to pay for that though....

You do understand that this proposal includes a provision that no player is active for more than 16 regular season games?

Just now, row_33 said:

They can barely put competent men out there for 1/3 of roster slots as it is

 

 

Good, then solid coaching and FO talent evaluation become even more important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said:

You do understand that players get hurt and take a game off in other sports?  

Yes but do other fans?  There were comments against it for that reason including comments from other teams' fans/

 

I did not say I agree with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

Yes but do other fans?  There were comments against it for that reason including comments from other teams' fans/

 

I did not say I agree with it.

Owners are greedy.

 

Players are greedy.  

 

They'll figure out a way to make it work.

 

Fans are an afterthought.

Edited by Cripple Creek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said:

Owners are greedy.

 

Players are greedy.  

 

They'll figure out a way to make it work.

 

Fans are an afterthought.

 

I disagree.  It fundamentally changes the way sports work.

Players in Hockey, Baseball and Basketball (all which have over 80 games a season) may sit out a few BUT no professional

sport forces any of these players to sit out.

 

I see the majority of football fans hating this if it's implemented.

I personally fly back to Buffalo every year for a game.  If that game has JA sitting out while healthy I personally will never book another game again!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

I personally fly back to Buffalo every year for a game.  If that game has JA sitting out while healthy I personally will never book another game again!

 

I'm willing to bet that they'll take you up on it.

 

NFL revenue comes from TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said:

I'm willing to bet that they'll take you up on it.

 

NFL revenue comes from TV.

 

You can be as trite as you want but the Monday morning sports shows will be dominated by "What would of happened is so and so played"?

You conveniently ignored my prime question.  What sports FORCE's players to sit out?

That's the question, case closed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ColoradoBills said:

 

You can be as trite as you want but the Monday morning sports shows will be dominated by "What would of happened is so and so played"?

You conveniently ignored my prime question.  What sports FORCE's players to sit out?

That's the question, case closed. 

So, because it's never been done it cannot be done?  

 

And, it wouldn't be FORCING.  It would be a mutually agreed upon provision of the collectively bargained agreement.

 

Have you ever heard the term any publicity is good publicity? While I won't go that far, as long as the NFL is grabbing viewers Roger will put up with talking head nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said:

So, because it's never been done it cannot be done?  

 

And, it wouldn't be FORCING.  It would be a mutually agreed upon provision of the collectively bargained agreement.

 

Have you ever heard the term any publicity is good publicity? While I won't go that far, as long as the NFL is grabbing viewers Roger will put up with talking head nonsense.

 

It is forcing players to sit out and I don't believe the players will go for it.

We will see.

 

Elite outspoken players will voice their opinions about this (if it gets traction) and their opposition of taking a chance to not go to the Super Bowl

because their "replacement" lost 2 games for their team.

Once again, we will see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

It is forcing players to sit out and I don't believe the players will go for it.

We will see.

 

Elite outspoken players will voice their opinions about this (if it gets traction) and their opposition of taking a chance to not go to the Super Bowl

because their "replacement" lost 2 games for their team.

Once again, we will see.

A vast majority of the players "want to play" the game.  But, just think of all the intrigue that this could bring into the league.

 

Bellichick sits Brady for a game in OP. Can you imagine how that will be played up inside and outside of the locker room? My God, that would be so much fun. This place would go nuts.

 

It would be a chess match for a coach to figure out who & when.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said:

A vast majority of the players "want to play" the game.  But, just think of all the intrigue that this could bring into the league.

 

Bellichick sits Brady for a game in OP. Can you imagine how that will be played up inside and outside of the locker room? My God, that would be so much fun. This place would go nuts.

 

It would be a chess match for a coach to figure out who & when.  

 

Agreed.  Would make suicide pools more interesting, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Cripple Creek said:

They'll cut two preseason games that nobody cares about and add two in season games. Players, under this proposal, would play a maximum of 16 in season games, the same as today.  Your arguments aren't making sense.

They're making complete sense, but you can't see it the forest for the trees. It would make it to where you have to pick and choose which players to sit for at least 2 games a year. The only difference is those 2 games could cost your team where as right now they are games "nobody cares about" like you say. It's stupid. 

Edited by H2o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

It is forcing players to sit out and I don't believe the players will go for it.

We will see.

 

Elite outspoken players will voice their opinions about this (if it gets traction) and their opposition of taking a chance to not go to the Super Bowl

because their "replacement" lost 2 games for their team.

Once again, we will see.

I believe the part about 16 game eligibility was put in to appease the players. They don’t want to play more games. 

4 minutes ago, H2o said:

They're making complete sense, but you can't see it the forest for the trees. It would make it to where you have to pick and choose which players to sit for at least 2 games a year. The only difference is those 2 games could cost your team where as right now they are games "nobody cares about" like tou say. It's stupid. 

I don’t like the idea of only 16 game eligibility in an 18 game season, but I think much of this would take care of itself. Lots of starters miss games during the year, so it would be easy to choose which games to “ sit “ them for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, formerlyofCtown said:

They can get high as **** for two of them.

All of them if they are not already “ in the program”. The NFL doesn’t test during the season. 

3 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

The players need to only play 16 of the 18 games...I hate that idea.

 

I want an 18 game seasons.....the other ideas I like that have been brought up:  Expand the gameday roster and the total roster and go with 2 bye weeks.  Only 2 preaseason games..or get rid of the preseason totally.

No no no. Do not add any bye weeks, they are terrible. 

5 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

The coaches already self-reduced the preseason games. The fourth game has become a total joke. 

Yep, and the first one isn’t much better. They can be eliminated and the players would probably push for this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...