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

[Shanedorf]

32 minutes ago, Woz said:

Good on Minnesota and Ziggy Wilf. Seriously.

Hold off on the parade for a moment

Many teams have gone to the variable pricing model, charging more for premium match-ups and less for lesser match-ups
Owners like zygi still get the exact same amount of money, its just re-distributed and other fans make up the shortfall.
You can see which teams use this plan in the link below

https://www.si.com/nfl/2015/07/11/ap-fbn-variable-pricing-list

Also, in previous years the vikes forced their fans to buy a preseason (or other lesser game) in order to "earn the privilege" to buy the highly- sought after Packer games. That's the reality.

Still wanna laud Zygi ? OK by me

[Woz]

8 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Also, in previous years the vikes forced their fans to buy a preseason (or other lesser game) in order to "earn the privilege" to buy the highly- sought after Packer games. That's the reality.

Still wanna laud Zygi ? OK by me

Okay. I'll leave the ins and outs to those who know.

Charging fans anything for those games is a waste.

[Shanedorf]

3 minutes ago, Woz said:

Charging fans anything for those games is a waste.

Its such a weird scenario - the NFL should be using those preseason games to garner new fans and introduce non-ticket holders to the excitement of a game day experience. I'd make the preseason tickets $5 .
Yer still gonna sell parking / food / beverages /merchandise and you're building your future fan base.

[swede700]

49 minutes ago, Woz said:

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.

I do agree that it's a cash grab...and I think they wouldn't be able to do it immediately once that next version of the CBA would go in-force.  I think they'd probably have to have a 3 yr lead up to get everything set up, but they already have multiple London locations available, as well as Mexico City and Toronto, each of those cities could host multiple games, if need be, until they can get other cities on board.  I believe it's probably the most feasible option of any of them.  

Of course, I think it would also require a 2nd Bye Week, which would also be a boon to the league (and players), as it would give the players an extra week to rest and also push the SB to President's Day Weekend, which is what the league has been wanting for years.

Edited July 15, 2019 by swede700

[Woz]

Just now, swede700 said:

I believe it's probably the most feasible option of any of them.

Within the constraints of "if the NFLPA actually was to agree to such a deal," then yes, that's probably the most feasible.

As I said before, "give us everything we demand of the owners in exchange for this sort of proposal" is probably the place where the players association actually agrees to it.

[swede700]

Just now, Woz said:

Within the constraints of "if the NFLPA actually was to agree to such a deal," then yes, that's probably the most feasible.

As I said before, "give us everything we demand of the owners in exchange for this sort of proposal" is probably the place where the players association actually agrees to it.

Oh, I don't doubt that in the least.  To get that sort of deal, the owners are certainly going to have to concede quite a bit in other areas, most notably the roster size (as has been discussed) and the Commissioner's power over personal conduct (which I argued at the time that the NFLPA should never have allowed in the first place).  

[Shanedorf]

4 hours ago, Woz said:

Again, seriously asking: why not

1. Boost roster size to 60.

That's great for the fans and the game - I'd be all for it.
But I am trying to figure out who would push for that in these negotiations
The owners don't want to pay mo money for more players, and that includes healthcare while they are playing and after they retire.
The NFLPA might want more jobs, but they would then have more mouths to feed from their cut of the revenue. 200+ more players would reduce the paychecks of the guys who are voting on the CBA, so its hard to see either side pushing for it - even though it makes a lot of sense

The owners and players are getting together to decide how to split up our money....which reminds me of the old phrase:

" IF you don't have a seat at the table, it means you are on the menu"

The fans need to organize and roll out the NFLFU so us fans finally get a seat at the Big Table

[jebrick]

2 hours ago, Woz said:

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?"

So the owner would get 2 more games AND the players need to practice more?  The players negotiated less practice in the last CBA and it has lead to games being vry sloppy at the beginning of the season.

[Woz]

1 hour ago, Shanedorf said:

That's great for the fans and the game - I'd be all for it.
But I am trying to figure out who would push for that in these negotiations
The owners don't want to pay mo money for more players, and that includes healthcare while they are playing and after they retire.
The NFLPA might want more jobs, but they would then have more mouths to feed from their cut of the revenue. 200+ more players would reduce the paychecks of the guys who are voting on the CBA, so its hard to see either side pushing for it - even though it makes a lot of sense

1. There's a lot more players in the league at the bottom end of the payscale/hoping to make one more paycheck than at the top.
2. The whole point was if they truly wanted to protect the players, they could do it without increasing the number of regular season games (reducing preseason games) while not putting the roster bubble guys out to pasture unfairly.
   
   But the owners just want the cash.

[Woz]

Just now, jebrick said:

So the owner would get 2 more games AND the players need to practice more?  The players negotiated less practice in the last CBA and it has lead to games being vry sloppy at the beginning of the season.

At this point, your primary starters play a total of what, three quarters max, in preseason?

The lack of practice time (especially for offensive linemen, as @swede700 pointed out earlier) is a problem. On one hand, you need to develop these young guys and your hands are tied. On the other, the repeated reps/collisions they take in practice have been shown to do more damage over the long term than the games themselves. The previous CBA swung way away from practices, and I think the NFLPA can even see that there's been a problem in the development pipeline. It doesn't help that the college game has stepped away from that because there's no real incentive for them anymore, again especially for linemen.

Personally, I don't like the idea of more games. I don't really see the point beyond a cash grab. If they're going say "oh, we want 18 games, but we're worried about player safety, so we'll cap them at 16 games," that's just insulting. At least my suggestion to increase the roster size might help. I don't know. I just don't see the point of increasing the regular season while keeping preseason at four games (which is pretty much a mirage since your mainline starters play what 3 quarters at most?).

[Thomas5737]

4 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

The owners don't want to pay mo money for more players, and that includes healthcare while they are playing and after they retire.

Do you need more players? There are 7 inactives each week now, 53 on the roster and 46, I think, on gameday. 7X18/2=63. So currently there are enough inactive spots to rest 63 players for 2 weeks per season. Specialists would be tricky, but if they don't put in exemptions for kickers and punters then this looks even dumber than it already does.

[DigInBoys]

The season just whizzes by so fast, would love more football as long as players are protected.

What about 18 games, two bye weeks and players are limited in the number of snaps they can play per game?

[Ragnarok]

There is one reason this was leaked to the media.  So that the owners can pretend like they gave something up when players fight back on this idea.  Then they can say that they gave this up, so players should give something up.  

That's the only reason this idea ever saw the light of day.

[swede700]

13 hours ago, Ragnarok said:

There is one reason this was leaked to the media.  So that the owners can pretend like they gave something up when players fight back on this idea.  Then they can say that they gave this up, so players should give something up.  

That's the only reason this idea ever saw the light of day.

That's certainly a possibility, but I also believe they said 18 in order to get a compromise down to 17.  During the last CBA discussion, they did the same thing you mentioned in order to get some things they wanted.  I'm not as sure that they would do it a 2nd time and not get something actual out of it...which in my belief, would be to get to 17.  

Edited July 16, 2019 by swede700

[Ragnarok]

2 hours ago, swede700 said:

That's certainly a possibility, but I also believe they said 18 in order to get a compromise down to 17.  During the last CBA discussion, they did the same thing you mentioned in order to get some things they wanted.  I'm not as sure that they would do it a 2nd time and not get something actual out of it...which in my belief, would be to get to 17.  

I think that the 'something actual' they would get would be a concession by the players on a different item.  The owners give up an aspect on something they don't really care about/know is stupid(like only allowing players to play in 16 games) to get something they do care about like percentages of TV deals/an 18 game season.