Jump to content

NFL to have 3 game preseason, 17 game regular season for 2021


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Deadpulse said:

You must understand that pushing the body to its limits for an extra week takes more of a toll than what you are suggesting. Long term stressors on the body compound without layoffs to fully heal and recover. Its an exponential increase in toll, not a simple +1. 

Quote

In fact, the average NFL player's career lasts just 2.5 years, according to Chron.com's data.

The mass majority play 5-6years or less. Good on them for getting extra paydays. Those lasting longer, its their own choice and own faults. Not somebody elses that they continue to play into their 30s or are being forced to do this now to begin with. Its all their doings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, PARROTHEAD said:

The mass majority play 5-6years or less. Good on them for getting extra paydays. Those lasting longer, its their own choice and own faults. Not somebody elses that they continue to play into their 30s or are being forced to do this now to begin with. Its all their doings.

Not sure what your point is

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, squire12 said:

if you are really thinking of the exponential injury risk, then player safety would be less games

Sure, but I'm not advocating for it. Just explaining the downsides of this news. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Deadpulse said:

Sure, but I'm not advocating for it. Just explaining the downsides of this news. 

NFL players at this point in time should understand the risk of the profession they are getting into.  More games means more revenue, more revenue means an opportunity for them to receive more compensation.  

there is an upside and a downside..... much like many other walks of life.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, squire12 said:

NFL players at this point in time should understand the risk of the profession they are getting into.  More games means more revenue, more revenue means an opportunity for them to receive more compensation.  

there is an upside and a downside..... much like many other walks of life.  

If they're able to use this as a bargaining chip and win during the next CBA for more money, bigger chunk of the TV profits, better benefits, retirement, and a 2nd bye week, then it won't be that big of a deal for the players IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, squire12 said:

NFL players at this point in time should understand the risk of the profession they are getting into.  More games means more revenue, more revenue means an opportunity for them to receive more compensation.  

there is an upside and a downside..... much like many other walks of life.  

You are assuming those revenue spikes will trickle down to the players at an increased rate. Player compensation will always inflate due to constant market topping deals and general cap inflation. Whether this 1 game more will prove to increase earning potential has yet to be seen. I am curious to see if the year over year increase is more, percentage wise, in the next few years than it has been recently. It doesn't help that revenue has taken an overall hit due to the pandemic. I guess my point in all this is that increased compensation is in no way a guaranteed upside. IMO, vet minimums should increase with this news, if they dont make that move it is very telling that the league and owners intend to pocket the revenue increase as opposed to sharing that extra income with players. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Deadpulse said:

Not sure what your point is

Only a small portion are having these long careers. This extra game benefits the overwhelming majority of players that make teams.

Youre talking the long term effects on guys that make the choice themselves to play on. Thats on them. Barry Sanders & Calvin Johnson proved that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PARROTHEAD said:

Only a small portion are having these long careers. This extra game benefits the overwhelming majority of players that make teams.

Youre talking the long term effects on guys that make the choice themselves to play on. Thats on them. Barry Sanders & Calvin Johnson proved that.

Okay, are you refuting what I said? I don't think you are but the way you are wording things seems like you are trying to be. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Deadpulse said:

You are assuming those revenue spikes will trickle down to the players at an increased rate. Player compensation will always inflate due to constant market topping deals and general cap inflation. Whether this 1 game more will prove to increase earning potential has yet to be seen. I am curious to see if the year over year increase is more, percentage wise, in the next few years than it has been recently. It doesn't help that revenue has taken an overall hit due to the pandemic. I guess my point in all this is that increased compensation is in no way a guaranteed upside. IMO, vet minimums should increase with this news, if they dont make that move it is very telling that the league and owners intend to pocket the revenue increase as opposed to sharing that extra income with players. 

The CBA is set at like 48% of revenue.   Why the NFLPA agreed to a long deal with at set % is beyond me.   As it is now, the more revenue that comes in affects that % and will be transferred to the players.  Who gets that additional revenue is yet another unknown....but more than likely it will go to the upper tier.  

NFLPA missed the boat in not tying the vet minimum to a % of the league salary as a floor.   The vast majority of the players making up the NFLPA would have benefited.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL is so far behind the times. You would think they should have realized by now that having players violently smash into each other for 16 out of 17 weeks and then do nothing for the next 8 months is not the best way to manage a season.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, with my proposal for neutral site games, it would allow the Bears and Chiefs to occasionally play nominally neutral-site games at the Dome at America's Center in St. Louis, though crowds would overwhelmingly favor the Bears or Chiefs.

I'm sure people in St. Louis would be glad to have some NFL games played there, even if not 8 games a year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...