Jump to content

Gambling could renew push for 18-game season


DigInBoys

Recommended Posts

On 5/18/2018 at 7:36 PM, Calvert28 said:

Players can barely handle 16 games plus the playoffs. They need rehab and hibernation in the offseason. Careers could be severely shortened by an action like this.

This is spot on, add 2 games and the SB will come down to who is the healthier team because players will be completely shot physically by the time the SB is played and likely be reduced by one or 2 superstars, pretty well making the game a complete joke!!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, going to 18 games will require the NFLPA to get something in return (beyond the higher salary cap it would create). Something big. The dissolution of the franchise and transition tag would be a start, but I don't think that would be enough. Guaranteed veteran free agent contracts maybe? It isn't happening any time soon because the "get" for the players has to be significantly higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Iamcanadian said:

This is spot on, add 2 games and the SB will come down to who is the healthier team because players will be completely shot physically by the time the SB is played and likely be reduced by one or 2 superstars, pretty well making the game a complete joke!!! 

I don't disagree with this idea that 2 more games would lead to more injuries (which is obvious) but I do question how much of an impact it would have. The CFL plays 18 games, is everyone injured when they reach the Grey Cup?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Woz said:

Again, going to 18 games will require the NFLPA to get something in return (beyond the higher salary cap it would create). Something big. The dissolution of the franchise and transition tag would be a start, but I don't think that would be enough. Guaranteed veteran free agent contracts maybe? It isn't happening any time soon because the "get" for the players has to be significantly higher.

I think the players are very likely to go after all of the things you mentioned in the next CBA regardless of the length of the season and the owners ask to give some (if not all) of that is gonna be a move to an 18 game schedule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, youngosu said:

2 games is pretty significant in a 16 game season so downplaying that variance seems a little silly to me. 

Determining a schedule based on previous season's record is NOT perfectly fair. Claiming it is is absurd for the very reasons you described in your next 2 paragraphs. 

But...it's not determining a schedule. It's determining two games, as you yourself pointed out. Two games isn't a big deal if you're talking about keeping a sixteen game slate and needing to fill a couple of slots. Maybe it should be across conferences, though. I don't know.

12 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

What alot of people are missing from the OP's article is this....

So the injury concerns are lessened, but this also means that we have to watch our favorite teams' back up QB vs another back up QB for two weeks and potentially even on MNF or SNF. Sounds like TWO glorified 3rd pre-season games to me. 

Not necessarily, really. It depends how the season plays out, injuries, what's at stake for each team, etc. I'm not in favor of the eighteen game schedule, but just pointing out that it probably would be quite a lot different from a pre-season affair with the regular season, and might even be interesting--even though I'm against it.

12 hours ago, youngosu said:

Because why?

You say so? 

It's pretty much now aligned with Pete Rozelle's dream scenario for the league. If I was on the defending end of that argument I'd say it was because Rozelle said so.

11 hours ago, youngosu said:

Guess what? I post about topics that interest me. 

Guess what interests me? The business side of the sport. So I post about the business side of the sport. Pretty simple. 

You don't seem to be posting about the business side of the sport at all, so I don't get that statement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, youngosu said:

I don't disagree with this idea that 2 more games would lead to more injuries (which is obvious) but I do question how much of an impact it would have. The CFL plays 18 games, is everyone injured when they reach the Grey Cup?

No idea. Does it matter? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

It's pretty much now aligned with Pete Rozelle's dream scenario for the league. If I was on the defending end of that argument I'd say it was because Rozelle said so.

So you'd use an obvious fallacy (appeal to authority) to defend your position? And I am the troll. Okay....Lets go with it. 

I'd love a quote from Rozelle where he claims his dream is a 16 game season with 32 teams because "math" I don't recall a single quote from Rozelle about the league being perfect once it reaches 16 games and 32 teams, said quote must exist based on the claim you just made. Care to share? You know,  provide evidence of your claim? 

Even if Rozelle did believe 16 games and 32 teams was perfect it wouldn't have been for the stupid absurd reasoning justanotherfan presented. 

3 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

But...it's not determining a schedule. It's determining two games, as you yourself pointed out. Two games isn't a big deal if you're talking about keeping a sixteen game slate and needing to fill a couple of slots. Maybe it should be across conferences, though. I don't know.

2 games is absolutely significant in a 16 game season, I at no point have I said 2 games was no big deal. It absolutely is a big deal when the season is only 16 games. 

I am pretty certain that 12.5% of the schedule being varied when compared to division rivals is the highest of any major sport in the world. That is definitely significant. 

The NHL has no variance in the East, and 7% variance in the west (which will go away when Seattle enters the league)

MLB has 4% variance (I believe, this may be slightly higher but under 10% for sure)

The NBA has 5% variance

12.5% is huge. 

3 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

You don't seem to be posting about the business side of the sport at all, so I don't get that statement.

The schedule and how its created is absolutely 100% about the business side of the sport. No clue how you could claim otherwise. 

3 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

No idea. Does it matter? 

It matters because we have an example of a pro football league playing 18 regular season games, if their postseason is not ruined by such a schedule that would be evidence that it wouldn't ruin the NFL's postseason. That connection should be quite obvious. Its sort of how evidence based reasoning works. The best source of evidence of what 2 more games would due with regards to both injuries and the quality of the postseason is the CFL. 

At the end of the day 16 games isn't some magic number delivered by the God's of football that cannot be changed. Its simply the arbitrary number the league landed on in 1978 and hasn't changed since. At that time I am sure many fans thought 14 games was perfect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously the players only playing 16 games is a non-starter for this whole idea but if the NFL were serious there are some things they could do to help make it work.

1) Expand the roster in some way and/or have short term IR options (say 4 games instead of the season)

3) Increase the season to 20 weeks providing 2 byes with a bye guaranteed prior to TNF games (which wouldn't start until later in the season and end with a month or so left in the season) giving teams a bye followed by a game followed by a long week creating additional rest and making TNF games far more manageable.

At the end of the day I think 18 games is coming, its just a matter of time rather people like the idea or not. I'd bet on it happening with the next CBA. And honestly if the NHL can play 82 games I think the NFL would survive a move to 18. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, youngosu said:

So you'd use an obvious fallacy (appeal to authority) to defend your position? And I am the troll. Okay....Lets go with it. 

I'd love a quote from Rozelle where he claims his dream is a 16 game season with 32 teams because "math" I don't recall a single quote from Rozelle about the league being perfect once it reaches 16 games and 32 teams, said quote must exist based on the claim you just made. Care to share? You know,  provide evidence of your claim? 

Even if Rozelle did believe 16 games and 32 teams was perfect it wouldn't have been for the stupid absurd reasoning justanotherfan presented. 

2 games is absolutely significant in a 16 game season, I at no point have I said 2 games was no big deal. It absolutely is a big deal when the season is only 16 games. 

I am pretty certain that 12.5% of the schedule being varied when compared to division rivals is the highest of any major sport in the world. That is definitely significant. 

The NHL has no variance in the East, and 7% variance in the west (which will go away when Seattle enters the league)

MLB has 4% variance (I believe, this may be slightly higher but under 10% for sure)

The NBA has 5% variance

12.5% is huge. 

The schedule and how its created is absolutely 100% about the business side of the sport. No clue how you could claim otherwise. 

It matters because we have an example of a pro football league playing 18 regular season games, if their postseason is not ruined by such a schedule that would be evidence that it wouldn't ruin the NFL's postseason. That connection should be quite obvious. Its sort of how evidence based reasoning works. The best source of evidence of what 2 more games would due with regards to both injuries and the quality of the postseason is the CFL. 

At the end of the day 16 games isn't some magic number delivered by the God's of football that cannot be changed. Its simply the arbitrary number the league landed on in 1978 and hasn't changed since. At that time I am sure many fans thought 14 games was perfect. 

--No clue as to what you even mean by an "obvious fallacy", but to assume that people would automatically value your opinion on football matters more highly than that of the man who shaped the sport into the financial juggernaut it is today is ridiculous, at best. That's magnified by the fact you really haven't even presented your opinion, or argument, at all. You've stated you wish the league would return to 14 games, but then you've also posted snippets about 34 teams and 18 games, and such. Also, it seems that in your excitement you have me confused with another member, one that called you a troll. I tend to avoid that sort of thing, but I certainly can call you one...if that helps. The attribution from Rozelle is from America's Game, by Michael MacCambridge, which I still recommend you read. And while, no, he's not quoted as saying "because math"--which I never claimed--I'm still not going to find a link for you. Especially considering it wouldn't be to help refute any sort of counterargument that I can see. 

--I never claimed that 2 games in the course of a 16 game schedule is insignificant, merely that strength of schedule wasn't a severely flawed method to determine those games. (Although I did allow that conference maybe shouldn't be such a heavy factor involved with all that.) Yet again, I'm not picking up any sort of alternative you're floating--outside of that 18 or 20 game thing you put up, which it wasn't even clear you advocated.

--I never claimed that the schedule has nothing to do with the business side of the sport. I merely claimed that you hadn't really put forth much in the way of any sort of views at all. And basically none when it came to the monetary side of things. I think the majority of the posters in this thread have mentioned more about the business aspects of these matters than you have.

--If you think the CFL and the NFL are essentially the same, I don't know what to tell you. I'd put forth you're in the minority on that one. And not just on the forum here.

15 minutes ago, youngosu said:

Obviously the players only playing 16 games is a non-starter for this whole idea but if the NFL were serious there are some things they could do to help make it work.

1) Expand the roster in some way and/or have short term IR options (say 4 games instead of the season)

3) Increase the season to 20 weeks providing 2 byes with a bye guaranteed prior to TNF games (which wouldn't start until later in the season and end with a month or so left in the season) giving teams a bye followed by a game followed by a long week creating additional rest and making TNF games far more manageable.

At the end of the day I think 18 games is coming, its just a matter of time rather people like the idea or not. I'd bet on it happening with the next CBA. And honestly if the NHL can play 82 games I think the NFL would survive a move to 18. 

I don't even know that having a games limitation within the season is a non-starter. I actually think that that's the way an 18 game season would even happen. The rosters would have to be expanded (as you point out), but even then there would have to be limits, as coaches control playing time. I think two byes should happen regardless, and I agree the league would survive an increase to 18 games. I just doubt the wisdom of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Heinz D. said:

--No clue as to what you even mean by an "obvious fallacy", but to assume that people would automatically value your opinion on football matters more highly than that of the man who shaped the sport into the financial juggernaut it is today is ridiculous, at best. That's magnified by the fact you really haven't even presented your opinion, or argument, at all. You've stated you wish the league would return to 14 games, but then you've also posted snippets about 34 teams and 18 games, and such. Also, it seems that in your excitement you have me confused with another member, one that called you a troll. I tend to avoid that sort of thing, but I certainly can call you one...if that helps. The attribution from Rozelle is from America's Game, by Michael MacCambridge, which I still recommend you read. And while, no, he's not quoted as saying "because math"--which I never claimed--I'm still not going to find a link for you. Especially considering it wouldn't be to help refute any sort of counterargument that I can see. 

--I never claimed that 2 games in the course of a 16 game schedule is insignificant, merely that strength of schedule wasn't a severely flawed method to determine those games. (Although I did allow that conference maybe shouldn't be such a heavy factor involved with all that.) Yet again, I'm not picking up any sort of alternative you're floating--outside of that 18 or 20 game thing you put up, which it wasn't even clear you advocated.

Its a fallacy to simply say "Rozelle would like it", now if you actually presented Rozelle's argument you'd have something but you have said you won't do that so simply stating his name is not an argument. It simply isn't. Don't know what to tell you if you think it is. That said, I am guessing based on my own knowledge of Rozelle, he would defend using previous season's records to determine future schedules because it was part of his desire for parity in the league, I doubt he would specifically defend 16 games though because I am sure like any commissioner he would never commit to an arbitrary number of games. Its a fair argument that I happen to disagree with even if it is from Rozelle but you aren't making that argument so we are back to the "appeal to authority" fallacy. 

And I have presented an opinion:

Both 14 and 18 games would be better than 16 games because in both cases you would not have to rely on strength of schedule for any of the games. Everyone in every division could play a common schedule. That is my argument. Using previous season's to determine future schedules is bad for the game. You (and Rozelle) are free to disagree it doesn't make me wrong. Even if Rozelle's opinion is "valued" greater than mine it still doesn't make his opinion anymore right than mine. 

Presenting more than 1 alternative (which is what I have done) is a valid argument. I'd honestly be totally fine with either. 

If you insist on keeping 16 games you cannot make it work with a 32 team league, its simply impossible because of actual math. With 34 or 36 teams you could make 16 games work but not 32 teams. So you are right I am not presenting any alternative to fix a 16 game schedule in a 32 team league because its unfixable. 

1 hour ago, Heinz D. said:

 

--If you think the CFL and the NFL are essentially the same, I don't know what to tell you. I'd put forth you're in the minority on that one. And not just on the forum here.

I never at any point said the CFL and NFL were "essentially the same" just that its the closest you can get to the NFL and ignoring their data is foolish. Their data is relevant to the conversation. Its a professional football league that plays 18 games. The CFL doesn't have to be "essentially the same" to make it a relevant comparison. 

And you are right I haven't said much about the monetary side of an 18 game schedule because frankly I think its pretty obvious. The details of an 18 game schedule and reasons for or against it are still a business of the NFL discussion rather or not you use the word money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Heinz D. said:

I don't even know that having a games limitation within the season is a non-starter. I actually think that that's the way an 18 game season would even happen.

Its a non-starter. If the league goes to 18 games, players will be allowed to play in all 18. They might float the idea of limiting players to 16 but it would never happen. And for the sake of argument even if it did happen it would be an utter disaster and disappear in year 2. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, youngosu said:

Its a fallacy to simply say "Rozelle would like it", now if you actually presented Rozelle's argument you'd have something but you have said you won't do that so simply stating his name is not an argument. It simply isn't. Don't know what to tell you if you think it is. That said, I am guessing based on my own knowledge of Rozelle, he would defend using previous season's records to determine future schedules because it was part of his desire for parity in the league, I doubt he would specifically defend 16 games though because I am sure like any commissioner he would never commit to an arbitrary number of games. Its a fair argument that I happen to disagree with even if it is from Rozelle but you aren't making that argument so we are back to the "appeal to authority" fallacy. 

And I have presented an opinion:

Both 14 and 18 games would be better than 16 games because in both cases you would not have to rely on strength of schedule for any of the games. Everyone in every division could play a common schedule. That is my argument. Using previous season's to determine future schedules is bad for the game. You (and Rozelle) are free to disagree it doesn't make me wrong. 

Presenting more than 1 alternative (which is what I have done) is a valid argument. 

If you insist on keeping 16 games you cannot make it work with a 32 team league, its simply impossible because of actual math. With 34 or 36 teams you could make 16 games work but not 32 teams. So you are right I am not presenting any alternative to fix a 16 game schedule in a 32 team league because its unfixable. 

I never at any point said the CFL and NFL were "essentially the same" just that its the closest you can get to the NFL and ignoring their data is foolish. There data is relevant to the conversation. Its a professional football league that plays 18 games. The CFL doesn't have to be "essentially the same" to make it a relevant comparison. 

And you are right I have said much about the monetary side of an 18 game schedule because frankly I think its pretty obvious. 

--You have, just now, in that post, presented an actual, coherent argument. I responded with Rozelle because you posted something along the lines of not being able to come up with a reason to defend what we have now (again, without presenting a coherent argument). 

--How is a 16 game schedule in a 32 team league unworkable? You've presented your full blown schedule rotation opinion when you were talking about your 34 team league...or something, I don't recall. How does what we have now not work? It seems that there are games and stuff on TV?

--Pretending there are enough similarities between the CFL and the NFL that comparisons as to schedule length are valid is foolish, not ignoring CFL "data", which I notice you can't even begin to provide. Are there differences in injury rates, and severity? How much money does the CFL generate? What sort of financial impact would the loss of the quarterback of the Edmonton Eskimos have?

If the NFL does goes to an 18 game schedule, I think the odds of there not being any restrictions on player games or minutes are pretty small. And that's understandable, I suppose. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, youngosu said:

Its a non-starter. If the league goes to 18 games, players will be allowed to play in all 18. They might float the idea of limiting players to 16 but it would never happen. And for the sake of argument even if it did happen it would be an utter disaster and disappear in year 2. 

Why not? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Woz said:

Again, going to 18 games will require the NFLPA to get something in return (beyond the higher salary cap it would create). Something big. The dissolution of the franchise and transition tag would be a start, but I don't think that would be enough. Guaranteed veteran free agent contracts maybe? It isn't happening any time soon because the "get" for the players has to be significantly higher.

Real question. At this point, (seeing as how most players are totally against an 18 game season) is there really enough bargaining chips on the table that the owners would be willing to even give up, realistically?

I'm really asking because I'm sitting here trying to think of some realistic offers and I'm drawing a blank. But maybe I'm not thinking of everything either.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Heinz D. said:

You have, just now, in that post, presented an actual, coherent argument. I responded with Rozelle because you posted something along the lines of not being able to come up with a reason to defend what we have now (again, without presenting a coherent argument). 

No, I presented it much earlier but than had some idiot decide to troll me for an hour. I am sorry you missed it but it is there. 

From page 3:

"Couldn't disagree with this more, the best reason to move to 18 games is so you can get rid of the unbalanced schedules. 18 games means every team could play their division opponents twice (6 games), every team in 2 divisions of their conference (8 games), and 1 division from the other conference (4 games).  You could even set it up so with the exception of interconference games everyone has the same home/away schedules. Every team in each division plays the same opponents, no more easier/harder schedules."

34 minutes ago, Heinz D. said:

How is a 16 game schedule in a 32 team league unworkable? You've presented your full blown schedule rotation opinion when you were talking about your 34 team league...or something, I don't recall. How does what we have now not work? It seems that there are games and stuff on TV?

Really? We have covered this, they play an UNBALANCED schedule within divisions now. That is what does not work. It is impossible to balance such a schedule with a 32 team league and 16 games. The schedule should be balanced is literally my entire argument. That is unworkable in a 32 team league using 16 games. 

 

34 minutes ago, Heinz D. said:

--Pretending there are enough similarities between the CFL and the NFL that comparisons as to schedule length are valid is foolish, not ignoring CFL "data", which I notice you can't even begin to provide. Are there differences in injury rates, and severity? How much money does the CFL generate? What sort of financial impact would the loss of the quarterback of the Edmonton Eskimos have?

Jesus, I never said I could provide the data. I simply asked a question about rather CFL players are all injured come playoff time. I have no idea if they are or not. But I do think you are wrong to claim the comparison is invalid. The NFL and CFL even partner when researching things like concussions in football so the NFL must think there is some validity to the data they can get from the CFL (they also have an officiating partnership so they must think the game is somewhat similar up north). So I guess like the NFL I am a fool. I'm cool with that. 

33 minutes ago, Heinz D. said:

Why not? 

Because the people running the NFL aren't foolishness enough to believe fans will accept Aaron Rodgers not playing in a game that counts if he isn't injured. Its simply not going to happen. Gamblers and fantasy players (and probably coaches) would also demand that such information is announced by Wednesday or Thursday of game week (without fantasy football and gamblers ratings will plummet) and ticket prices for such a game would drop on the secondary market making season tickets less valuable overall. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...