Jump to content
ChaRisMa

How the NFL should get to an 18 Game Schedule

Recommended Posts

I posted this in the NFL General forum but I wanted to get a few guys opinions from here.

 

Obviously the fastest route to dramatically improve the NFL’s revenue is to add games.  The NFL would love to add 10-12% to their revenue by doing so. The players, despite the fact that they would be given that same 10-12% raise under the current CBA, do not feel that’s in their best interest due to, for the most part, health concerns. 

The NFL and NFLPA, will forever be at odds over the health risk. They have already neutered practices, gone sometimes even confusing lengths to lower concussions, engaged in several courtrooms, and kickoffs are set up to essentially not exist.

So if the NFL wants an 18 game schedule but the players don’t want to play 18 regular season games, why doesn’t each player simply be REQUIRED to sit out 2 games? There will be three ways to meet that required amount.

First, obviously if you  have already appeared in 16 games, you must sit out until the postseason.

Second, if you have been inactive any game do to injury you may continue appearing in games until you have been active for 16, plus the postseason. 

Lastly, a team can decide to rest you any week.

 

 

1. Would the parties agree to that? Why or why not?

2. Would you like that? Why or why not?

Do you think it would add great drama to the league? 

4. Do you think it would lead to greater parity with the additional player development?

5. Do you think it would improve player health?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I said a while ago when the 18 game season had a lot of momentum going for it and I got ridiculed for it.  It's really not a bad idea at all, and it really bothers me when people act like it's a bad idea. 

Yeah, you're gonna get a lot of fans upset if they go to a game to see Rodgers play and he sits out that game, but that's really no different from the threat of not seeing a player play due to injury. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would also have to expand the roster, which would spread the money thinner.  What do you do the two weeks that your kicker, punter, and long snapper have to sit out? In order to make every single player on the 53 man roster sit out 2 games, you are cutting the roster by 6 players every week, they would be making their active 45 from a pool of 47. 

 

I like the idea, I just think it doesn't work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a neat idea about sitting out two games, but that does mean players worthy (and fit) to start, will miss games through the season, because you cannot be left at the end of the season with all your starters required to sit out.

I was more in the camp of deleting two preseason games to allow for the extra two regular season ones. That has it own drawbacks, like starters playing a bit more, because the 17th and 18th games of the regular season matter, in a way that preseason games don't. The losers would be fringe players who have that much less of a shop window to show their stuff. The extra wear and tear (on starters) of the added two games might be partly offset in various ways. an extra (54th) roster guy, a slight tweak to how IR and pup are handled, a second bye week, etc (I do quite like the second bye week).

I have brought this up before (on other sites) and most posters who responded were against any change from the current 16 game format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

That is a neat idea about sitting out two games, but that does mean players worthy (and fit) to start, will miss games through the season, because you cannot be left at the end of the season with all your starters required to sit out.

I was more in the camp of deleting two preseason games to allow for the extra two regular season ones. That has it own drawbacks, like starters playing a bit more, because the 17th and 18th games of the regular season matter, in a way that preseason games don't. The losers would be fringe players who have that much less of a shop window to show their stuff. The extra wear and tear (on starters) of the added two games might be partly offset in various ways. an extra (54th) roster guy, a slight tweak to how IR and pup are handled, a second bye week, etc (I do quite like the second bye week).

I have brought this up before (on other sites) and most posters who responded were against any change from the current 16 game format.

Aaron Rodgers and established vets will play about 6 drives in preseason in total. At about 75% intensity. There's no comparison to playing 24ish extra drives at 100% intensity. Removing preseason games doesn't work. 

Share this post


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

You would also have to expand the roster, which would spread the money thinner.  What do you do the two weeks that your kicker, punter, and long snapper have to sit out? In order to make every single player on the 53 man roster sit out 2 games, you are cutting the roster by 6 players every week, they would be making their active 45 from a pool of 47. 

 

I like the idea, I just think it doesn't work. 

This is an excellent point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Aaron Rodgers and established vets will play about 6 drives in preseason in total. At about 75% intensity. There's no comparison to playing 24ish extra drives at 100% intensity. Removing preseason games doesn't work. 

I'd agree that it is only a part of an answer.

Share this post


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

I posted this in the NFL General forum but I wanted to get a few guys opinions from here.

 

Obviously the fastest route to dramatically improve the NFL’s revenue is to add games.  The NFL would love to add 10-12% to their revenue by doing so. The players, despite the fact that they would be given that same 10-12% raise under the current CBA, do not feel that’s in their best interest due to, for the most part, health concerns. 

The NFL and NFLPA, will forever be at odds over the health risk. They have already neutered practices, gone sometimes even confusing lengths to lower concussions, engaged in several courtrooms, and kickoffs are set up to essentially not exist.

So if the NFL wants an 18 game schedule but the players don’t want to play 18 regular season games, why doesn’t each player simply be REQUIRED to sit out 2 games? There will be three ways to meet that required amount.

First, obviously if you  have already appeared in 16 games, you must sit out until the postseason.

Second, if you have been inactive any game do to injury you may continue appearing in games until you have been active for 16, plus the postseason. 

Lastly, a team can decide to rest you any week.

 

 

1. Would the parties agree to that? Why or why not?

2. Would you like that? Why or why not?

Do you think it would add great drama to the league? 

4. Do you think it would lead to greater parity with the additional player development?

5. Do you think it would improve player health?

Players wouldn't like it because they would have to spread the money thinner because you would need more rosters and they would hate being forced to sit out regular season games their teams need to win to be successful. Owners would hate it because they would likely have to pay more money for the increased roster sizes and would hate watching their competitive team play handicapped.

I would also not like it. I hate bad football and Brett Hundley is bad football.

I think it would add drama to the league but i can pretty much tell you that it would make two games in a season rather pointless. Whatever games you played against the AFC would become games where we would bench our best players for tiebreaker purposes. Packers vs. Patriots would look super lousy with Rodgers and Brady both sitting out because that would be the smartest game for them to sit.

I don't think it would lead to greater parity. Just more bottom of the roster guys.

It might improve player health if there was incentive to rest guys who are playing at less than 100%. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

 

It might improve player health if there was incentive to rest guys who are playing at less than 100%. 

I thought of that, but then I had this thought:  What if it is the end of the season, your starting LB is dinged up, two of the other LBs played 16 games and you are left with 1 LB on roster who has to play all defensive and special teams plays because he is the only one there?  It is exposing that guy to a lot more physical punishment than before.

Share this post


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

You would also have to expand the roster, which would spread the money thinner.  What do you do the two weeks that your kicker, punter, and long snapper have to sit out? In order to make every single player on the 53 man roster sit out 2 games, you are cutting the roster by 6 players every week, they would be making their active 45 from a pool of 47. 

 

I like the idea, I just think it doesn't work. 

You absolutely expand rosters but the economics won’t really change. Owners will make more profit. Fans get an 18 game season. The pool of money to players increases. More players get the minimum. Players in general make more but the biggest names will get the highest % increase. It increases development. 

Exclude Punters and Kickers.

Edited by ChaRisMa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would create bad football games. I don't get the point. Why do I want to expand a season to watch Brett Hundley or Kizer quarterback two games? You're either making two more preseason games that actually count if a teams strategy is to bench a big group of starters for 2 games. Or you're intermittently scattering benchings of your starters so you are close but never at full strength every game. Why would I want to watch that either?

The NFL doesn't need more money or more games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Am not. Engineer by profession.

Parents are both attorney's though so if I communicate like one that's probably why. 

 

6 hours ago, ChaRisMa said:

I posted this in the NFL General forum but I wanted to get a few guys opinions from here.

 

Obviously the fastest route to dramatically improve the NFL’s revenue is to add games.  The NFL would love to add 10-12% to their revenue by doing so. The players, despite the fact that they would be given that same 10-12% raise under the current CBA, do not feel that’s in their best interest due to, for the most part, health concerns. 

The NFL and NFLPA, will forever be at odds over the health risk. They have already neutered practices, gone sometimes even confusing lengths to lower concussions, engaged in several courtrooms, and kickoffs are set up to essentially not exist.

So if the NFL wants an 18 game schedule but the players don’t want to play 18 regular season games, why doesn’t each player simply be REQUIRED to sit out 2 games? There will be three ways to meet that required amount.

First, obviously if you  have already appeared in 16 games, you must sit out until the postseason.

Second, if you have been inactive any game do to injury you may continue appearing in games until you have been active for 16, plus the postseason. 

Lastly, a team can decide to rest you any week.

 

 

1. Would the parties agree to that? Why or why not?

2. Would you like that? Why or why not?

Do you think it would add great drama to the league? 

4. Do you think it would lead to greater parity with the additional player development?

5. Do you think it would improve player health?

1. No, they want their playmakers on the field

2.. No, I want to see my playmakers on the field

more drama? No

4. No players will still take the time to develop, we are not yet robotical

5. Perhaps, no comment because it is a hard game..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Players wouldn't like it because they would have to spread the money thinner because you would need more rosters and they would hate being forced to sit out regular season games their teams need to win to be successful. Owners would hate it because they would likely have to pay more money for the increased roster sizes and would hate watching their competitive team play handicapped.

I would also not like it. I hate bad football and Brett Hundley is bad football.

I think it would add drama to the league but i can pretty much tell you that it would make two games in a season rather pointless. Whatever games you played against the AFC would become games where we would bench our best players for tiebreaker purposes. Packers vs. Patriots would look super lousy with Rodgers and Brady both sitting out because that would be the smartest game for them to sit.

I don't think it would lead to greater parity. Just more bottom of the roster guys.

It might improve player health if there was incentive to rest guys who are playing at less than 100%. 

I don't see a way the money gets thinner. Revenue was 440 Mil in 2016. If you are making 20 Million dollars a game via all forms of revenue, it's fair to say we can add two games, make 40 mil, owners keep 20, that's an additional 20 million for players. You can cover the extra bodies needed with that.

I agree Brett Hundley is bad football. But he was the end of the bad football spectrum. Nick Foles dazzled. It's a two way street, and it's competitively balanced. No one will bench starters early in the season because if they are injured later, they will want to use the injured time as the two weeks off. Could a team scratch a healthy starter early on? Sure. But that'd be ballsy. You aren't going to sit Aaron Rodgers week 3 against the Bears just so you can have him week 18 in a tougher matchup because if he gets injured week 17 you'll have started him 15 of the 16 games he could've been heathy for. The strategy for every team would still be to play the best healthy players every week until you have to use a reserve.

Later in the season, sure, coaches will be picking games to gear up for. But everyone will pretty much be in the same boat. 

Parity-wise You'll actually see what backup players can do more often, which will lead to better play overall. It'd certainly showcase QB play more often. It'll also create controversy at positions. It'll expose weak points in teams. It'll give teams a reason to move players into different roles. It'll also help level the playing field for injuries. Only 12 QBs started all 16 games last year. Only 8 RBs. Only 6 WRs. The only position you'll have a noticeable drop off those two weeks is QB. Otherwise you are adding games for stars to play in once they are healthy late in the season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, this 18-game scheme would give fans something to talk about, but that's only because they would be angry and confused. It's just watering down the product, and everybody would know it. I suppose you could rotate good players out of the game-day roster a few at a time, but if you do that, which good players are you going to play in the Hundley game? Wouldn't it be better to concede a couple of games (maybe the non-conference road games) so you can be near full strength for the rest? I suspect that for the most part teams would go all-out in the first 16 games and then try to cobble together a roster from leftovers for the last two games. That would be an anticlimactic end to the season. I can't think of any equivalent to this in sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Greg C. said:

Sure, this 18-game scheme would give fans something to talk about, but that's only because they would be angry and confused. It's just watering down the product, and everybody would know it. I suppose you could rotate good players out of the game-day roster a few at a time, but if you do that, which good players are you going to play in the Hundley game? Wouldn't it be better to concede a couple of games (maybe the non-conference road games) so you can be near full strength for the rest? I suspect that for the most part teams would go all-out in the first 16 games and then try to cobble together a roster from leftovers for the last two games. That would be an anticlimactic end to the season. I can't think of any equivalent to this in sports.

I’m not sure you’d notice so much.

LIS, only 12 QBs started every game last year. 8 RBs, 6 WRs. By week 8, our team is starting Knile Davis, and by the playoffs we are starting Ladarius Gunter. You are getting more starters for 16 games and developing the younger guys those weeks they are particularly banged up. I don’t see a way the time to heal doesn’t help the human body. 

The league needs QB Development badly. If we had what I propose we probably see Hundley a year earlier and know he’s as useful as a poopy flavored lollipop.

You could also play all division and conference games prior to the end week 16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×