NFL proposed 18 game season to NFLPA with 16 games per player limit

[JonMcC2018]

Not exactly the same, but in the UK there are limits on how many games rugby players are allowed to play over a calendar year. It's a different situation as the top players play both domestic and internationally but the concept of resting players throughout the season is there.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/45956402

[Rockice_8]

On 7/13/2019 at 1:48 PM, perrynoid said:

I'd prefer 16 games, 1 less preseason game, and the extra bye week.  There would still be 18 weeks of games, so more overall revenue, simply due to the fact that when my favorite team has a bye, I am still watching games.

If you take one preseason game and add a bye week isn't that the same amount of weeks or am I missing something?  

 

[MSURacerDT55]

I wonder if teams push for blowouts so that they can sit starters for at least a quarter. If they do this 4 times it could equal up to 1 game or if they get credit for missing a half due to to injury/targeting. What if a guy could come out of the bullpen for a half if he has time accumulated. Just curious 

Edited July 15, 2019 by MSURacerDT55

[Woz]

On 7/13/2019 at 1:48 PM, perrynoid said:

I'd prefer 16 games, 1 less preseason game, and the extra bye week.  There would still be 18 weeks of games, so more overall revenue, simply due to the fact that when my favorite team has a bye, I am still watching games.

Serious question: why not zero preseason games? Most of the roster spots are already decided before training camp even begins (due to contracts and draft status). The remaining ten or so (or less?) probably get decided by training camp ... with more than a few opening up due to injuries in preseason games.

 

Expand rosters by a few spots (say up to 60?), no mandatory game day inactives, dump preseason, an extra bye week ... these would help with player safety and allow teams to take chances on those fringe-ier guys without wasting anyone's time with meaningless games.

 

On 7/13/2019 at 2:08 PM, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

The only reason I like this is if they can increase the cap WAY more by doing this because of the revenue for the additional 2 games and the players should benefit from that...but they won't

Owner's money grab doesn't grab money if they have to share it with ickle players.

[KManX89]

17 hours ago, Vikes_Bolts1228 said:

Or imagine if you're playing a team who's star QB missed 2 games in the regular season due to injury.

Pat Mahomes misses two games for whatever reason. Well, he already sat out his two games. Now the Chargers, who couldn't sit Rivers in weeks 1-16 because they're battling for a playoff spot, have to trot out Tyrod Taylor to start against Mahomes as Rivers is in street clothes.

It's stupid.

 

I know, if starters can't play a full 18 game season, then maybe they shouldn't institute an 18 game season, lol.

[swede700]

On 7/12/2019 at 3:59 PM, Shanedorf said:

Packers President and mouthpiece, Mark Murphy

One potential bargaining chip is the creation of an 18-game season. While he discussed the option frequently at the time, Murphy was not a proponent of that during the last round of CBA talks.

“It’ll be an interesting issue,” Murphy said. “With the concerns that we have about the health and safety of our players, it’s a difficult issue to add two more regular-season games. I would say, though, that we don’t need four preseason games. As I look at the overall NFL, one of the worst things we do is our preseason. The games are not a positive thing. They are not well-received by fans. They serve the purpose of getting ready for the season but we don’t need all four of them. I think that will be an issue in bargaining. Another thing that’s been discussed is the possibility of going to 17 and three and having the 17th game be an international game or a neutral site game, so you can help grow the game in other areas. I think there may be some discussions about that, as well.”

I don't often agree with the Packers on anything, but I've been hammering the 17 games with 8 Home, 8 Away, 1 Neutral site game for probably around 5 years now.  It's the only one that makes any sense.  No one loses a regular season Home Game and they just cut down the number of preseason games by 1 as a result.  

[Woz]

2 minutes ago, swede700 said:

I don't often agree with the Packers on anything, but I've been hammering the 17 games with 8 Home, 8 Away, 1 Neutral site game for probably around 5 years now.  It's the only one that makes any sense.  No one loses a regular season Home Game and they just cut down the number of preseason games by 1 as a result.  

Again, seriously asking: why not

1. Boost roster size to 60.
2. Do away with mandatory game day inactives (i.e. all 60 can play on any given week).
3. Throw away preseason altogether.

Oh, what's that you say? You'd have to pay more players and not be able to charge season ticket holders full price for two meaningless preseason games no one wants? And it's not a cash grab? Okay then ...

[jebrick]

The NFL coaches want those preseason games to evaluate their players.  The quality of football will drop even further with less practice and and prep.

[Vikes_Bolts1228]

2 hours ago, Woz said:

You'd have to pay more players and not be able to charge season ticket holders full price for two meaningless preseason games no one wants? And it's not a cash grab? Okay then ...

I don't know if it was just the Vikings but the pre-season games are about half price of the regular season tickets. Started a couple years ago.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Vikes_Bolts1228

[swede700]

2 hours ago, jebrick said:

The NFL coaches want those preseason games to evaluate their players.  The quality of football will drop even further with less practice and and prep.

The quality of football has already dropped significantly over the last 15 years or so.  A lot of that has to do with the lack of offensive line development, both at the college and pro level.  The skill position players don't need the practice and prep, the offensive linemen do.  The preseason games don't help that, practice time does.  And they need to either let the offensive linemen have more contact in the preseason, or they need to create a separate level of practice squad/developmental league to help develop those offensive linemen quicker and more effectively.

Along @Woz's line, I think both sides can benefit if it's done right.  The owners can get their added revenue with an added regular season game and the players can benefit with expanded rosters (which probably should have been done awhile ago).  I actually do like inactive rosters though, since it creates some added strategy, but that's not a sticking point for me.  The preseason games do provide some benefit, so going to 0 really isn't an acceptable option (I hate that college football doesn't have any preseason games, outside of the spring game...they really should be able to have at least a scrimmage against some regional college team), but they don't need 4. 

Here's how I would think a 17-game schedule would work:

1 Home / 1Away vs. every team in own division (6 games)

2 Home / 2 Away vs. intra-conference division on a rotating basis (4 games)

1 Home / 1 Away vs team in same position in other 2 divisions in conference (2 games)

2 Home / 2 Away vs. inter-conference division on a rotating basis (4 games)

1 neutral site game vs inter-conference opponent in same position in the remaining division that they didn't play last year, this year or next year (it's a little confusing to explain, but follow me below).

For example, in addition to the games the Vikings already play this year, they would also play a neutral site game against the Steelers (the Vikings played the AFC East last year, the AFC West this year, and the AFC South next year, so that would leave the AFC North).

 

Edited July 15, 2019 by swede700

[Woz]

2 hours ago, jebrick said:

The NFL coaches want those preseason games to evaluate their players.  The quality of football will drop even further with less practice and and prep.

Hence the roster size increase. You can now hold onto more players that you are unsure of/want to develop.

 

The lack of effective off-season practice time is a separate but related issue. I thought about including a clause in there that would increase the number of off-season workouts that would be automatically voluntary (i.e do not count against "X% of offseason workout" bonuses) for players of a four (? can slide that around as needed) of years of service. I didn't mention it as I thought it would fracture the conversation into the separate but necessary "how does the NFL and the PA deal with the lack of practice time against time/life balance?"

[Woz]

18 minutes ago, Vikes_Bolts1228 said:

I don't know if it was just the Vikings but the pre-season games are about half price of the regular season tickets. Started a couple years ago.

Good on Minnesota and Ziggy Wilf. Seriously.

 

I don't believe that's the norm. Unless something has changed since I dropped my tickets, that's not the case with Washington.

[Woz]

9 minutes ago, swede700 said:

I actually do like inactive rosters though, since it creates some added strategy, but that's not a sticking point for me.

It cuts both ways, though. Teams now might have to deal with a more gadgety player because he's not wasting a roster spot if he was active. Likewise, if I know your team has some injuries in the secondary, maybe I feel more willing to go 4-5 wide with perhaps a lesser player and put the pressure on your defense.

[Woz]

14 minutes ago, swede700 said:

1 neutral site game vs inter-conference opponent in same position in the remaining division that they didn't play last year, this year or next year (it's a little confusing to explain, but follow me below).

For example, in addition to the games the Vikings already play this year, they would also play a neutral site game against the Steelers (the Vikings played the AFC East last year, the AFC West this year, and the AFC South next year, so that would leave the AFC North).

I guess that gets you to a seventeenth game, but does another cross-conference game really mean much (other than a "oooo, mo' money!" move)?

Also, you now need 16 neutral field sites/dates. Teams will need to know where they are so they can handle all of their logistics. Fans will need to know where they are to buy tickets. The cities/stadia need to know when so they can avoid scheduling conflicts and have resources available for the influx. This last one could be the trickiest, unless you schedule all of the weeks/locations well ahead of time and then just slot in the teams when the schedules are announced.

Again, it's a cash grab for the owners.

[43M]

1 hour ago, Woz said:

Again, seriously asking: why not

1. Boost roster size to 60.
2. Do away with mandatory game day inactives (i.e. all 60 can play on any given week).
3. Throw away preseason altogether.

Oh, what's that you say? You'd have to pay more players and not be able to charge season ticket holders full price for two meaningless preseason games no one wants? And it's not a cash grab? Okay then ...

Preseason is for coaches to evaluate young players and experiment a little.  Every other sport has a preseason.  It makes no sense to take away preseason to anyone except fans who don't understand what preseason means to coaches and young players.