stuvian Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 As the NFL continues to tamper with its golden goose to the point of the game becoming unrecognizable I offer my opposition to its latest attempt at milking the cash cow dry. The human body was not made for the pounding the game inflicts on its players. We already have a 30 percent rate of permanent disability among retired players. One more game will mean that none but punters and kickers will play a full season. This will weaken fan's relationships with stars and starters as the game evolves toward a platoon of unknowns. But the money you say? One more game cheque won't matter if you're going to spend it all on painkillers and physio. We already have players retiring earlier now that CTE risks are in the public domain. Where in the current schedule is the league going to insert the additional game? After Christmas when home games in cold climates are a tougher sell? Before labour day when the south is either unbearably hot or in hurricane season? How many more tweets of empty seats do we need to see before we understand that we have an oversupply? What makes the NFL great is that fewer games make each one meaningful. Watering down the product will make it indistinguishable from upstarts like the XFL. 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steptide Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 I'm fine with 17 games. Actually I've said it shoukd be 17 vs 18. I'd like to see the NFL let teams activate their entire rosters though. Let more guys play and take some stress off the key guys 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColoradoBills Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 4 minutes ago, stuvian said: As the NFL continues to tamper with its golden goose to the point of the game becoming unrecognizable I offer my opposition to its latest attempt at milking the cash cow dry. The human body was not made for the pounding the game inflicts on its players. We already have a 30 percent rate of permanent disability among retired players. One more game will mean that none but punters and kickers will play a full season. This will weaken fan's relationships with stars and starters as the game evolves toward a platoon of unknowns. But the money you say? One more game cheque won't matter if you're going to spend it all on painkillers and physio. We already have players retiring earlier now that CTE risks are in the public domain. Where in the current schedule is the league going to insert the additional game? After Christmas when home games in cold climates are a tougher sell? Before labour day when the south is either unbearably hot or in hurricane season? How many more tweets of empty seats do we need to see before we understand that we have an oversupply? What makes the NFL great is that fewer games make each one meaningful. Watering down the product will make it indistinguishable from upstarts like the XFL. I agree but we seem to be in the minority here. Maybe someone would do a poll. I haven't seen one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBeaneBandit Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 Also wouldn't 17 games make an odd number of home vs away games? Just doesn't sound right. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC BIlls Fan Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 With 17 games they will cut one of the preseason games. So it works out the same as a regular season. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 12 minutes ago, stuvian said: One more game will mean that none but punters and kickers will play a full season. This is exaggeration and my debate instructor taught me exaggeration is used when the argument is weak. 9 minutes ago, Steptide said: I'm fine with 17 games. Actually I've said it should be 17 vs 18. I'd like to see the NFL let teams activate their entire rosters though. Let more guys play and take some stress off the key guys There is reason for inactive players. Players are those who will take time to develop. In addition this allows teams to carry injured players who will not go on IR. In old days teams used to cut those players so they could fill slot; they still do with injury settlements but this way the player can heal and play again for team. Reports state they will be increasing roster size and practice squad size. We will need to wait to see if true. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machine gun kelly Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 The 17th game for once and for all which has been said in every outlet out there is a neutral site to expand the brand. It’s on every media outlet, newspaper, blog, etc. The 3 games is a negotiating ploy for ore-season, as it will settle on two games, and the dress squad will go to 53-55. There might be a second bye, and it has been proven over the last decade a 3 RD wildcard in each conference means mostly 10-6, and 9-7 teams with the worst 8-8. Not teams with a losing record. The only way to do it is 4 competitive practices as was presented, and a ton of concessions for players including marijuana, medical benefits for veterans and so on. If they phase in the 17 th game to 2022, it allows players to negotiate new contracts with a 17 th game involved. Also, the new contracts for tv and streaming and increasing the share for players from 47% to 48.5% with a substantial increase for over half the players on the minimum gaining a minimum of $93k and overall a 25% increase which is the horrible disparity in the league. Of course the 30+ players who are in the top 10 in every team only get a 4.5% increase, and they are motivated given their repeated injuries to not want this one, but the rank and file improve their situation tremendously. If you had an increased practice squad, 55 active on game day, and the majority of players getting an upwards of 25-50% increase in their base pay just makes the sense. These guys avg. four years or less. The Mahomes, Sherman’s of the world are not going to hurt over this deal. They could start at Labor Day, and finish on Presidents’ Day so people have off on Monday after the SB. The league has international games, increases the revenue, for ALL, including 48.5% to players, and they all win. This is going to happen so wrap you’re arms around it. It’s not going away. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtimebillsfan Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 My first reaction to a 17th game is that we see the real lack of concern by the NFL for player safety. The NFL implemented the concussion protocol and modified rules to reduce injuries due to social pressure. When there is potential to increase revenue, player safety takes a back seat every time. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billl Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 32 minutes ago, TheBeaneBandit said: Also wouldn't 17 games make an odd number of home vs away games? Just doesn't sound right. 8 home, 8 away, 1 neutral site 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Joe Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 I feel sorry for those poor Patriots players having to play 19 games most years... Hope they turn out ok.. 2 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Man Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 40 minutes ago, TheBeaneBandit said: Also wouldn't 17 games make an odd number of home vs away games? Just doesn't sound right. It's going to be an international round within 5 years. They won't admit it, but that's the reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Joe Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 All things evolve and change guys... even the NFL.. Its going to be ok... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 2 minutes ago, Aussie Joe said: All things evolve and change guys... even the NFL.. Its going to be ok... some see the danger inherent in a change but most go along thinking all change is good and when the obvious problem shows up inevitably the all-change-is -good people don’t bother to care at all and look to cheer the next dangerous change but you can leave that team, think a little bit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Joe Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 Just now, row_33 said: some see the danger inherent in a change but most go along thinking all change is good and when the obvious problem shows up inevitably the all-change-is -good people don’t bother to care at all and look to cheer the next dangerous change but you can leave that team, think a little bit... I’m good thanks.. I think 17 game season will be fine.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan in Cleveland Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 17 games and I'd be fine with getting rid of all the preseason games. They are useless and if I was a player I'd be more pissed about putting myself at risk in a preseason game than a real one. College has no preseason and they are fine. Yes many teams play cupcakes to start the season but there are still great games from day one like Auburn Oregon last year. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nester Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 I am not too worried about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardhatharry Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 1 hour ago, stuvian said: As the NFL continues to tamper with its golden goose to the point of the game becoming unrecognizable I offer my opposition to its latest attempt at milking the cash cow dry. The human body was not made for the pounding the game inflicts on its players. We already have a 30 percent rate of permanent disability among retired players. One more game will mean that none but punters and kickers will play a full season. This will weaken fan's relationships with stars and starters as the game evolves toward a platoon of unknowns. But the money you say? One more game cheque won't matter if you're going to spend it all on painkillers and physio. We already have players retiring earlier now that CTE risks are in the public domain. Where in the current schedule is the league going to insert the additional game? After Christmas when home games in cold climates are a tougher sell? Before labour day when the south is either unbearably hot or in hurricane season? How many more tweets of empty seats do we need to see before we understand that we have an oversupply? What makes the NFL great is that fewer games make each one meaningful. Watering down the product will make it indistinguishable from upstarts like the XFL. It's not a bad thing 30 minutes ago, row_33 said: some see the danger inherent in a change but most go along thinking all change is good and when the obvious problem shows up inevitably the all-change-is -good people don’t bother to care at all and look to cheer the next dangerous change but you can leave that team, think a little bit... I guess someone said this when they went from 14-16 also... And the world didn't implode. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Joe Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 9 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said: 17 games and I'd be fine with getting rid of all the preseason games. They are useless and if I was a player I'd be more pissed about putting myself at risk in a preseason game than a real one. College has no preseason and they are fine. Yes many teams play cupcakes to start the season but there are still great games from day one like Auburn Oregon last year. I don’t think they will get rid of the preseason completely but will shorten it to two weeks.. 2 preason games, 17 games and 2 byes and the season is the same length as it has always been.. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Otreply Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 GREED its what’s for dinner..., all over America... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nextmanup Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 Well of course the injury/wear and tear on the body aspect of this is a major concern and one of the main negotiation points the NFLPA is going to care about. Think about it, though. You'd have to play a 16 year career to have this extra game extend your career by 1 season, if you see what I mean. The added wear and tear is arguably not as great as you would guess, especially if it is extrapolated over the average very short NFL career or what? 4 years? Less now? And if we are concerned with unnecessary wear and tear on these guys' bodies, eliminate IN ITS ENTIRETY the pre-season, where plenty of guys get seriously injured...for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaos Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 2 hours ago, stuvian said: As the NFL continues to tamper with its golden goose to the point of the game becoming unrecognizable I offer my opposition to its latest attempt at milking the cash cow dry. The human body was not made for the pounding the game inflicts on its players. We already have a 30 percent rate of permanent disability among retired players. One more game will mean that none but punters and kickers will play a full season. This will weaken fan's relationships with stars and starters as the game evolves toward a platoon of unknowns. But the money you say? One more game cheque won't matter if you're going to spend it all on painkillers and physio. We already have players retiring earlier now that CTE risks are in the public domain. Where in the current schedule is the league going to insert the additional game? After Christmas when home games in cold climates are a tougher sell? Before labour day when the south is either unbearably hot or in hurricane season? How many more tweets of empty seats do we need to see before we understand that we have an oversupply? What makes the NFL great is that fewer games make each one meaningful. Watering down the product will make it indistinguishable from upstarts like the XFL. thought this thread was going to be an exmplanation of why it was good the bills missed the playoffs for 20 years 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 2 hours ago, TheBeaneBandit said: Also wouldn't 17 games make an odd number of home vs away games? Just doesn't sound right. Plus, I don’t know of any sport that has an odd number of games... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 1 hour ago, Billl said: 8 home, 8 away, 1 neutral site i'd rather the NFL stop tinkering with what made it great. But if they absolutely must do a 17 game schedule, this is an excellent suggestion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laughing Coffin Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 (edited) Didn't they already say what their solution is? I thought I heard that they'll literally alternate years where a team will have 9 home games 1 year and 9 away games the next I really think if they stacked an additional bye week to be held no sooner than 4 weeks after the first bye week with the 17 game proposal, it might pass. I don't see the NFL Owners being reasonable though Edited February 22, 2020 by Laughing Coffin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 3 hours ago, stuvian said: As the NFL continues to tamper with its golden goose to the point of the game becoming unrecognizable I offer my opposition to its latest attempt at milking the cash cow dry. The human body was not made for the pounding the game inflicts on its players. We already have a 30 percent rate of permanent disability among retired players. One more game will mean that none but punters and kickers will play a full season. This will weaken fan's relationships with stars and starters as the game evolves toward a platoon of unknowns. But the money you say? One more game cheque won't matter if you're going to spend it all on painkillers and physio. We already have players retiring earlier now that CTE risks are in the public domain. Where in the current schedule is the league going to insert the additional game? After Christmas when home games in cold climates are a tougher sell? Before labour day when the south is either unbearably hot or in hurricane season? How many more tweets of empty seats do we need to see before we understand that we have an oversupply? What makes the NFL great is that fewer games make each one meaningful. Watering down the product will make it indistinguishable from upstarts like the XFL. good call, let’s do 15 games. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zerovoltz Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 @Aussie Joe hit on it already....the Patriots have played ALOT of extra games over the last 2 decades...they are fine. I want to touch on "player safety" .....I call BS on that. If the concern here was for the safety of players, then you have them play ZERO games of pro football. It's a rough, dangerous, phyiscaly game that exacts a toll on the player. Everyone knows that going into the deal. No one is forcing anyone to play football, and if you agree to go out and play the game, there is X number of dollars that you'll be paid. Just about everyone who is capable of playing pro football, make the choice to accept the possible consequences. That's not to say effort shouldn't be made to find better helmets or consider different ways to do things....but "player safety" is just a negotiating term. Football by it's nature is unsafe...they are negotiating to play an unsafe game. It's really.....the NFL wants to add a 17th game, wich will make them more money...and in excahnge for the players agreeing to it...we'll ease up marijana testing, and share more of the pie. That's what it comes down to......player safety? whatever. Third....I mentioned here a long time ago when it came up....and the media has said so...and it's been said in this thread as well.....the 17th Game would be a non division game at a nuetral site. Most correctly point out that it really allows for more international games....but I think the idea of nuetral site is brilliant on the part of the NFL. As it has gotten more difficult to get people to pay for expensive tickets at stadiums when you can stay home.....especially if your team sucks.....then have a game at a big college stadium....it would sell out due to the novelty of it....and in alot of places, fans that have a hard time making the trek, might go if it's closer to home.... Examples....and you could do a ton of these before you ran out combos and places to play Denver VS Seattle, Boise Idaho. Cleveland VS Detroit, Ann Arbor Michigan. Chicago VS Indianapolis from South Bend. Kansas City VS. Minneapolis from Lincoln, NE Dallas VS Chargers from Albequeque New Orleans VS Miami from Tuscaloosa Buffalo VS NY Giants ....(you guys tell me...Carrier Dome, West Point...Yankee Stadium....IDK!) Philly VS Pitt from Happy Valley Redskins VS Baltimore from Blacksburg, VA Tampa VS Tennesee from Athens, GA San Francisco VS Cincy from Tokyo Houston VS LA Rams from Salt Lake City Or, as a KC fan....just these possibilities alone are interesting KC Vs Chicago in St. Louis KC Vs Dallas from Fayetteville, AR KC Vs Minnesota in Iowa City, IA And so many others. You rotate these around all over the place.....you tell me that a game between KC and Dallas in Fayettevill wouldn't sell out or be a big draw in TV? It's like printing money.....and staying engaged with out of town fans. And...Buffalo...I don't know the area....but as far as regional fan engagement....what would you do? Toronto? Montreal? Syracuse? Erie? I am sure there are places Bills fans would travel to or who live in the area and would go to a game every other year or 2 or 3. 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 2 hours ago, Hardhatharry said: I guess someone said this when they went from 14-16 also... And the world didn't implode. Really? The way some complain about records being broke I am guessing they have been complaining since AFL was merged with NFL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xwnyer Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 4 hours ago, Steptide said: I'm fine with 17 games. Actually I've said it shoukd be 17 vs 18. I'd like to see the NFL let teams activate their entire rosters though. Let more guys play and take some stress off the key guys Ay be extend the roster to 65 and allow all to dress. This could help relive the stress. Maybe 17 weeks with two bye weeks is a better idea. Five to six games than a bye than 5 or 6 next bye and than end of season. 1/2 the league does the 5 week than 6 week other half 6 week than 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 Hurricane season?! And a 16 game schedule is what is keeping the NFL from being "indistinguishable from the XFL"! Wow. The human body wasn't made for many things. But people of all ages get hurt playing games that kids play. They aren't paid for that though. As NoSaint says, if this was at all a concern, why not cut down to 15 or 12 or 10? Or just have the 2 teams with the best record in each conference play in the SB? The simple answer his that the risk of a single extra game can't be quantified. Anyway, give me another game in the NFL. I'm watching, just like every poster on this board. Everyone will tune in just as ever. Zero reason to believe otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSBill Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 (edited) I’m all four 17 games, and more play-off teams. Especially if it rids us of a pre-season game, and they expand the game-day rosters. It all seems like common sense to me. Edited February 22, 2020 by CSBill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djp14150 Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 5 hours ago, TheBeaneBandit said: Also wouldn't 17 games make an odd number of home vs away games? Just doesn't sound right. Yet the team has played international sites they could make that extra game an international site or neutral site 8 games inUK 2 in germany 3 in mexico 2 in Canada 2 in australia/Asia ... in November a game could be played at noon on Sunday locally and air at 8pm ET on Saturday night. Thus could doa Monday night air game from there . Can do the late Monday night game or late ngoni Saturday game from China. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJS Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 Let them have as many regular season games as they want. I just don't want expanded playoffs unless they add more teams to the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve O Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 6 hours ago, stuvian said: The human body was not made for the pounding the game inflicts on its players. So you're saying Whaley was right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonCents Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 By 2025 everyone is going to be like “oh Mark Cuban was right” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
without a drought Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 The league has been garbage since going from 14 to 16 games, so who cares at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangarang Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 I couldn’t care less about player safety. I’d be good with more games 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 10 hours ago, stuvian said: As the NFL continues to tamper with its golden goose to the point of the game becoming unrecognizable I offer my opposition to its latest attempt at milking the cash cow dry. The human body was not made for the pounding the game inflicts on its players. We already have a 30 percent rate of permanent disability among retired players. One more game will mean that none but punters and kickers will play a full season. This will weaken fan's relationships with stars and starters as the game evolves toward a platoon of unknowns. But the money you say? One more game cheque won't matter if you're going to spend it all on painkillers and physio. We already have players retiring earlier now that CTE risks are in the public domain. Where in the current schedule is the league going to insert the additional game? After Christmas when home games in cold climates are a tougher sell? Before labour day when the south is either unbearably hot or in hurricane season? How many more tweets of empty seats do we need to see before we understand that we have an oversupply? What makes the NFL great is that fewer games make each one meaningful. Watering down the product will make it indistinguishable from upstarts like the XFL. That seems like a strange and difficult to substantiate conclusion to draw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LABILLBACKER Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 This will be an interesting fight between the elite high contract players and the 50% of the players who make the league minimum. Good luck telling Aaron Rodgers he's only making $250k for the last game. The idea of a 7th playoff team is excellent and will generate more revenue but the NFLPA will be hard pressed to get that 17th game passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eanyills Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) 12 hours ago, longtimebillsfan said: My first reaction to a 17th game is that we see the real lack of concern by the NFL for player safety. The NFL implemented the concussion protocol and modified rules to reduce injuries due to social pressure. When there is potential to increase revenue, player safety takes a back seat every time. It’s not like the NFL can just add a 17th game against the wishes of the NFLPA. The player’s union has to sign off on it. Now, union leadership is generally weighted towards the most tenured/powerful members and maybe that leadership has the persuasive clout to tell its members, “***** you, we are/aren’t playing a 17th game” but the majority still has to vote in favor of playing an extra game to get it done. I expect it will pass, because the majority of members are lower wage/shorter playing career guys who will benefit from an extra game check. That will be the players choosing to have “player safety take a back seat.” Edited February 23, 2020 by eanyills Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoTier Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 17 hours ago, row_33 said: some see the danger inherent in a change but most go along thinking all change is good and when the obvious problem shows up inevitably the all-change-is -good people don’t bother to care at all and look to cheer the next dangerous change but you can leave that team, think a little bit... If we, as a species, didn't embrace change, we'd still be wandering naked in the warmer parts of the world, hiding from all the carnivores big enough to eat us, and grubbing/scavenging for whatever we could find to eat. Where do you think change should have stopped? With the use of fire? With the domestication of the wolf? With learning to cultivate crops? With the invention of writing? Where do you draw the line where you oppose more changes? Every change brings positives and negatives, but generally, those changes make things "good" for things better in the long run. 5 hours ago, eanyills said: It’s not like the NFL can just add a 17th game against the wishes of the NFLPA. The player’s union has to sign off on it. Now, union leadership is generally weighted towards the most tenured/powerful members and maybe that leadership has the persuasive clout to tell its members, “***** you, we are/aren’t playing a 17th game” but the majority still has to vote in favor of playing an extra game to get it done. I expect it will pass, because the majority of members are lower wage/shorter playing career guys who will benefit from an extra game check. That will be the players choosing to have “player safety take a back seat.” That's a generalization that's totally unsupported by any facts. Why do you think that just because a player makes big $$$ that he would opposed to sharing the largess from the NFL's pot of gold with his teammates? NFL teams stress being "a band of brothers" rather than individuals, so it's more likely that opposition to a 17th game would stem from individual perspectives not from a general divide between the elite and the rest of the players. FTR, since the "union leadership" is answerable through elections to the rank-and-file, why would they favor the relatively few players making huge salaries to the detriment of the majority? If the NFLPA leadership opposes the new CBA, it's because it's not giving the rank and file good enough salary, health insurance, and retirement benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.