Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nucci

Report: NFL owners pitch 18-game schedule

Recommended Posts

19 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 you say. It's stupid. 

Brilliant is what it is, and fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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....

Pay for what? TV revenue increases, players still get a % of revenues and there is a salary cap. 

Share this post


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

Owners are greedy.

 

Players are greedy.  

 

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

 

Fans are an afterthought.

 

...inevitable?.....work stoppage....let the greedmeisters fight it out over a $10 BILLION DOLLAR cash cow......and to think Billy Shaw played for 18 grand a year with time off from mixing cement and enjoying a smoke and beer post game in front of his locker....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...inevitable?.....work stoppage....let the greedmeisters fight it out over a $10 BILLION DOLLAR cash cow......

Pretty much, though they'll do everything possible to avoid a stoppage. That's the one thing that might possibly turn away some fans permanently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...inevitable?.....work stoppage....let the greedmeisters fight it out over a $10 BILLION DOLLAR cash cow......and to think Billy Shaw played for 18 grand a year with time off from mixing cement and enjoying a smoke and beer post game in front of his locker....

Man...they didn't make much did they!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Rocket94 said:

Man...they didn't make much did they!

...LMAO...bet Pegula pays the Rockpile Beerman $2+ mil.......:thumbsup:

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/12/2019 at 12:22 PM, plenzmd1 said:

and that could be on strategy...be interesting to see what other people might do. 

 

Timing is one problem to me. Labor Day is problematic for both TV ratings and attendance, althouh I would love it.Maybe this pushes the schedule so that the SuperBowl is Presidents day weekend every year?

 

Then the car dealers would be upset, since that is a weekend they do a lot of business. And also the NBA All-Star Game is around that time,  isn't it?

Edited by from_dunkirk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Money in the owner's bank: Yes

Were coaches consulted:  Doubtful

Were players consulted:  Doubtful

Worth doing:  Yes, if you're an owner

Final verdict:  Dumb idea, unless you're an owner

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still say they go for a 17 game season with one game at a neutral site to expand the audience, and reduce the pre-season to one or two games.  Then add one team to the wildcard so there is only one team who gets a bye, and the revenue increases for players and owners.

 

Not my idea, it is what Pat Kirwan has been purporting as the 18 with everyone with two games off is stupid and problematic.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

...bigger question is limiting players to 16 games played.......thus you have to start others with an 18 game schedule and use other backup players more often,diluting the product......how does "limiting players to 16 games played" work?.....full games?.....cumulative minutes that constitute a "game played( 30, 45, or ??)"?...quite the effed up proposed mess IMO....

 

In  two games, the 22 regular starters could not appear at all. The rule would not apply to special teams players. Players are allowed to start up to 16 games per season. No gimmicks, like your back-up QB starting for one play on two games and then your starter going in.

23 hours ago, Virgil said:

 

2 preseason games and add an extra bye week.  That would seem to cover the safety bucket. 

 

They tried having two bye weeks years ago, in the 90's I think. Everyone hated it. Fans of each team went crazy on those two bye weeks. It lasted only that year.

23 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:

No need for extra bye week. It’s purpose is only to add an extra week of games for networks as it is. 18 regular season games accomplishes this. Every game carries risk, even the preseason as we see each and every year. 

 

In which case you can eliminate the single bye week then...if the purpose of the bye week is only to add an extra game.

Share this post


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

Is this a serious question? If this rule came to be, do you really think that there's a coach out there who would consider breaking it?

 

Plus, they couldn't even break it if they tried, as those players would be inactive that week, by rule.

22 hours ago, NewDayBills said:

This is going to destroy the record books. Once prestigious records will now be everyday norms. That pisses me off.

 

How?? When they added two games to the 14 game schedule of the 70's, nothing changed. OJ's and Jim Brown's rushing records stood for years after that. So did Babe Ruth's homerun record in MLB when they added more games.

Edited by from_dunkirk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Logic said:

The fans don't want this. The players don't want this.

The ONLY group that wants this is the owners, which is a group of people who are already incredibly wealthy.

They just keep trying to fix what isn't broken. The NFL is the most popular sport in America, and they're hellbent on ruining it in the name of lining their pockets even more than they already do. It's incredibly sad and a real shame to watch.

 

 

The league belongs to the owners. They can do with it what they wish. This is how capitalism works.

21 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

I mean it’s a business and I get that.  But man, this is a bad look for a league that pretends like they care about the players.  It’s why unless for a rare exception, you should never side with an owner over a player.  These guys are just pieces of meat to them that they get rid of the second they can’t produce. 

 

Teams do care about their players and even former players. Why do you think the Boston Red Sox flew David Ortiz to the US in a medical plane from the Dominican Republic even though he had been retired for years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Not much impact on individual records since each player still plays 16 games a season.

 

I think they just end up adding a bye week and eliminating a preseason game.  The extra tv revenue for the one week will more than make up for one less preseason game.

 

It would actually hurt individual player records. For example, Josh Allen would not be able to pad his stats again bad teams like Miami, as the Bills would surely to choose to sit him in those two games, as everyone agrees they are tanking this season.

20 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Pretty sure the smart teams would wait it out a bit and sit the starting QB due to A)An injury or B)A team they believe they can beat without the starter. It would be stupid to pigeon hole the first two or final two IMO. I could see a team going with the first two games, but definitely not the final two. Analytically, it would be wise to choose the games for a particular reason.

 

The teams would go with the final two games if the QB was injured, if they have already clinched a playoff spot/homefield advantage, or if they were out of contention.

Edited by from_dunkirk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, WhoTom said:

 

Currently:

6 divisional games

4 games against one division in your conference

4 games against one division in the other conference

2 games against teams in the other two divisions in your conference who placed the same in their respective divisions

 

Extra 2 games:

You play those last two teams twice each: once at home and once away.

 

 

That would be too boring. Do it how the NFL did it in the 80's: you play two teams each from those two other inter-conference divisions instead of just one. You either play the first and third place teams in the division from last year or the second and fourth place teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Chandler#81 said:

 

It really is.

If you select what you believe are weak opponents to sit QB, you give opponent great incentive: Stupid

If you’re in a situation where you have to win the last 2 games but your QB isn’t eligible:    Really Stupid

 

The obvi answer is larger rosters, but that costs $$, of which this foolish offering lays their greed out for all to see.

My take; 17 regular season games, 3 Preseason games. It’ll likely do away with many tiebreaker scenarios while giving new/young players an opportunity to showcase their wares for consideration.

 

 

 

 

I believe incentives/player motivation is overrated. It really comes down to skill. The team that feels disrespected by your playing your backup QB might have more motivation, but it will not do that much if you suck anyway. Look at the Bills: we have had plenty of motivation that last 17 years or so to beat the Patriots, but we haven't won that much.

 

Also, how would one more regular season game eliminate many of the tie breaker situations?

9 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

The problem with 17 regular season games is you'd have an uneven number of home and away games.  The only way I see that working is to designate a "neutral" field for one of the games.  Maybe every team plays in England and they get one game a week over there.

 

Or just have each team play an international game each year. Or just have them alternate each year: one year 9 home games and 8 away, and the next the year the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

.....and which TWO games does Barkley start?..........

 

Against Miami, obviously. 😂

5 hours ago, nucci said:

Preseason games are not needed...most established players barely play...it's why there is only 1 cut down date so the fringe players stick around to play 

 

They need one or two games to figure out who is going to be cut. They need the third game so they starters can tune up. In that game, most teams have the starters play three quarters.

3 hours ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

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.

 

The rule would only be applied to the regular 22 starters. Special teams would not be affected. They could play all 18 games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, from_dunkirk said:

 

 

 

They need one or two games to figure out who is going to be cut. They need the third game so they starters can tune up. In that game, most teams have the starters play three quarters.

 

 

No they don't...they see these guys practice every day.....plan a couple of scrimmages against another team and you're good......most teams know 40-45 players they are going to keep. I can cut 20 from the 90 man roster right now. This past preseason a lot of teams sat starters the 3rd game

Share this post


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

Pretty much, though they'll do everything possible to avoid a stoppage. That's the one thing that might possibly turn away some fans permanently.

 

 

...floating purely asinine proposals like this deserve a work stoppage....but TV revenues will save their gluttonous arses....where e;le would advertisers invest commercial time on Sundays?....I Love Lucy reruns?.......The Weather Channel?....gotcha by "the boyz"...........

Edited by OldTimeAFLGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, from_dunkirk said:

Or just have each team play an international game each year. Or just have them alternate each year: one year 9 home games and 8 away, and the next the year the opposite.

The first was my suggestion and would help grow the game internationally.  You'd have to change season ticket prices every year with the second option.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't read all 7 pages of reply, but was it mentioned that Tasker had this idea on one bills live a while back? He mentions it every so often and Murph typically laughs at him. Rightfully so, it's a horrific idea 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there should be football every Sunday 52 games a year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steptide said:

I didn't read all 7 pages of reply, but was it mentioned that Tasker had this idea on one bills live a while back? He mentions it every so often and Murph typically laughs at him. Rightfully so, it's a horrific idea 

 

I thought of this too I was listening that day last month. Murph laughed in his face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way I quite like this, purely from a tactical POV. As a coach deciding when to sit out certain players based on your opponent's strengths and weaknesses. Though I understand why a ticket holder would be pissed if they got one of the weeks when Allen wasn't playing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 games is too much.  It would just water things down and more injuries, shorter careers, more meaningless games.  They want to add revenue just dump direct tv  as the exclusive provider  Offer  more different ways to view football ala cart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Cripple Creek said:

Pretty much, though they'll do everything possible to avoid a stoppage. That's the one thing that might possibly turn away some fans permanently.

 

 

...NFL was pretty lucky in rebounding back in '87........MLB was not so lucky back in '94, thus quietly launching "The Juice Era" to lure fans back.....and now with MLB facing their 4th consecutive year of declining attendance, baseballs made by Rawlings (which MLB owns...COUGH) are flying out of ballparks in record numbers....."Juice Deuce"??...........

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...