DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum NFL Proposes 18 game season...but there is a wrinkle...

Well, now that you mention it, All Browns fans did suffer through the 2016 and 2017 seasons, (and even more), so to your point, I don't know what the complaining is about.

because it's not going to be, ... how can we say it's reduced quality, the Browns weren't 12-4 or 10-6 every year, there've only been 2 winning seasons since 99.

Dump 2 preseason games. Teams can get by on two. One home, 1 away. As Vers said, maybe scrimmage a bit more. Especially the 2nd units to give them the looks.

Add I more regular season game. I like the neutral site deal. Expand the game to cities who don't get it. I am not sure I like the idea of Brazil. What's wrong with Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City and places like that?

I like the idea that season ticket holders might be given a chance to purchase a seat to that game as an additional cost, but wouldn't be required.

Two bye weeks work. Maybe after week 6 and 12. If the league is intent on playing in Poland, or wherever, have every team playing overseas week 6 or 12 so every team if off after that road trip. If the league can't shut the entire league down for buys, keep 6-8 teams playing the buy week, then off the following so there is football to show. A Thursday night game, 2 Sunday games, and a Monday. Maybe dump a Thursday and add it to Sunday night.

Adding 1 regular season game will off set any loss by dumping two exhibition games, and the players playing 1 more regular season game isn't going to kill them. They all want to play more than 16 games anyway. They want playoff games.

I just don't like the idea of sitting players a mandatory two games. Places like the "old" Browns are always going to face the prospect of never seeing star players and have to watch their team get beat by back-ups.

If they do go with that, it needs to be league mandated. Week 5 as an example, all starting QBs need to sit so each team is playing back-up QBs. That is the only way I would even begin to be good with that, and even then it sucks.

Yeah,,, and if we lose one of the games or both of the games that Baker isn't allowed to play in, how happy would browns fans be.. Same for the Steelers without Ben, or the Pats without Brady or the.....well you get the drift.

Dumbest idea ever

I think that there are a ton of good players who aren't in the NFL. I think expanding the roster would actually be a good thing because you could develop more players.

No, I can't imagine having players sit two games. Don't even worry about that. It will never happen. This was just a proposal to get the ball rolling.

I can tell you never had season tix because you never mention the preseason games. Paying full price for those tickets should be a crime. They won't do it, but if you eliminate those "exhibition" games [that is what they used to be called until the NFL decided that wasn't a good marketing move,] shorten the length of training camp and then watch the number of injuries decrease.

I believe the above paragraph would have a much more significant impact on injuries than playing one more regular season game while adding an additional bye week.

This is not about pre-season ... DIFFERENT DISCUSSION imo ...

Paying for pre-season games is a joke and one of the reasons the entire lot of them are WHORES ... owners, players, agents .. everyone involved only cares about their slice of the pie ...

U keep tying in getting rid of pre-season games in favor of at least one regular season game ... my concern is the watering down of the league (IMO your only as good as your weakest link and look at our QB situation two years ago, the broncos QB situation over the last two or three years, throw in the jags last year ... look at the redskins, cardinals, raiders, bucs, dolphins and the rats situations this year ... there’s 3 major question marks and three abysmal situations .. that’s my opinion on the quality of the produce right now) ...

Anyhow .... getting rid of 1 pre-season game the regulars barely play in isn’t going to help with injuries witch waters the league down even more witch is my major concern ...

What the owners do by making season ticket holders pay full price for pre-season games is a JOKE and is an extremely whorish move IMO ... that issue has zero to do with adding extra regular season games IMO ..

Well.............all I can say is we disagree almost completely. That's fine.

ASSuMEing we don't have gambling/crime tainting the current game, wonder if the mob/crime folks could "influence" when someone sits or not, when someone is injured so they can play when the money says play.....I hate it, would open up HUGE can of worms possibly....GO Browns!!!!

The gambling aspect is a huge problem if they go w/that proposal. I mentioned it earlier.

I don't see that particular proposal ever becoming reality. It's just a starting point in the negotiations.

I don't understand how playing 1 extra regular season game a year and a few less exhibition games would water down the league.

I can see from a pure numbers standpoint that adding 4-5 more players per roster could be seen as watering down, but I agree with Vers, there are a lot of good players who don't make teams.

Every year you see players cut in the numbers game.

It's funny, the NBA and MLB are in early discussions on reducing games and the NFL is trying to add games.

So your saying an nfl roster is as good after week 16 as it is before week 1? ...

Were talking STARTING CALIBER NFL players here ... the additional 4 or 5 roster spots would be filled by bottom of the roster type guys ... there GREAT football players when compared to the rest of the population but there not as good as the starters ... there not starter caliber or they’d be on an nfl roster starting ...

Add to that after playing 16 games the players that are left standing are nicked and tired ... and another week will add to the injuries heading into the playoffs ...

I’m not sure how u can’t see how it wouldn’t water it down even more ... ...

NASCAR learned the hard way that more isn't always better.

The NFL needs to NOT overwork the Golden Goose. Leave it as is.

As a season-ticket holder STR I can tell you that the $$$ on the two pre-season games is an insult. I've actually asked my rep to suggest that they change the $$$ on pre-season tix to $50 and add the rest of the cost to the regular season tix face-value. Then when selling tickets, you ask for face-value and re-coup some of that cost. (Selling includes taking a friend who pays for their ticket.) BTW, changing the pre-season ticket $$$ is as likely as me winning a lottery that I don't even play.

So what you are saying is once you get to the 12th player on a side of the football, it is watered down product and you might as well not have them. See, I can put words in your mouth too

I just don't see 1 more game increasing a persons chance of injury. Those chances are there from game 1. The number of chances increases, but the odds of it happening remain the same.

I think shortening training camp by eliminating preseason games would have a more significant impact on injuries than it would be if they added one regular season game.

There are a ton of injuries that occur each and every year during training camp and in preseason games. The NFL always talks about trying to reduce injuries, but it's just talk. If they were serious about it, they would eliminate preseason games altogether and shorten TC.

Some might say that teams need those games to evaluate their roster and implement their play books. But again, colleges and high schools do it w/out "preseason games." And many do it w/much larger rosters. Ohio State has 125 players on their current roster. That's more than NFL teams. How do they evaluate their talent w/out preseason games?

Let's get real. This is all about greed. Those preseason games are a way to make even more obscene amounts of money for the league.

I don't know if that is telling, Punch. MLB plays 162 games. They play 82 or something like that in the NBA. The NFL consists of 16 games. Not exactly a fair comparison.

I've always wished for 18 regular season games and 0 preseason games. That will probably never happen unless interest in the NFL plunges significantly.

Your honor may we have a side bar ... thank u sir ..

All due respect judge, were not talking about the 12th man on the sideline were talking about the 10th OLman or DLman ... the 11th DB or the 8th LBer or the 7th WR ... hell until last year we never had 2 decent WR’s your honor ...

And all due respect your honor in regards to the injury rate ... ANALYTICS tells a different story about the affects of adding a 17th game than u do judge ... IF u were correct that the odds of getting hurt in every game were the same (its not, when u go into a game dinged or tired your naturally more supseptible to injury your honor and as the season progress u get dinged and wear out) ...

So even IF u were correct that the odds of getting hurt in any single game were the same each game the aggregate odds of getting injured would increase ... no disrespect intended your honor, thats ANALYTICS talking ... not me ...

Thanks for listening your honor ...

Case dismissed for lack of evidence and substance.

I think it's related, in the sense that each league is seeing a public less likely to sit down, watch a whole game and then do that the whole season (16, 162 or 82 times). As a consumer, we have so many extra entertainment options and they're 1 second away from us when we grab our phones. If the leagues can trim down the games, which will increase the impact of those results, maybe more people will tune in. Watching 1 of 72 is more important than 1 of 82.

I'm not advocating the NFL drop regular season games, but the more you add, the more you water down the importance, something MLB and the NBA are seeing.

Plus, NBA players have started this "load management" push and we all know about the concussion issue within the NFL. Attempting to add more games, even with a 16-game limit for each player, seems stupid.

I wouldn't mind the 16-game limit assuming they did it. Sure, it's incredibly stupid, but it would be interesting how each team would manage the players. On average, most players miss at least 1-2 games, that the limitation right there, not a big deal.

IMO, keep the regular season at 16 games, throw 2 of the exhibition games* in the trash and then expand the playoffs by one team within each conference (only one team each conference gets a bye week). That would make Wild Card Weekend truly wild (6 games).

*Back when I was a Bears STH, they dropped the exhibition game prices in half ($45) and then raised my seats to ($90). I think the fans would understand if they raised that one game back to $90 and threw the other one away. Boom, each owner ("team principal governor") would still have the same ticket revenue and I'd argue the ratings should go up since nobody cares about 4 preseason games (more would watch if it were only 2).

As it is now, if someone get's injured, they are replaced on the field with their backup, and a free agent is signed to to fill a roster spot. So really, what is the difference ? With the exception of having a FA pool of more talented unsigned players, their would still be approximately the same number of players signed during the course of a league year.

I just made a few comments to get the ball rolling. I still don't think this could ever come to fruition. But I am going to try an play devil's advocate for a moment...Because while on the surface, it is about off the wall and a bit crazy....underneath there are some good aspects.

So, from a fan aspect, especially those who are season ticket holders. Paying full price for preseason games is highway robbery. So the proposal of playing 2 less preseason games and 2 more regular season games seems the most reasonable option.

But the players are completely against that. Why? Well the biggest reason is injury concerns. NFL players take a massive beating each week. I remember reading a story about Jerome Bettis(an extremely tough player)...And How EVERY Monday, he could barely get out of bed, if at all. For many of these players, The downtime between games is about rehab to get ready for the next game. Think of Joe Thomas in the latter half of his career. He really didn't practice because of the wear and tear on his knees and shoulders. Thursday night games are already difficult because it cuts short the recovery time.

So from a players perspective...that proposal doesn't help them. It puts them at risk for more injuries and shorter careers.

So on the surface, this new proposal is supposed to placate some of those fears. The players bodies are not subjected to more risks. The owners get more gameday revenue as more people attend the game and buy stuff. The fans get better value for their tickets.

Another advantage is that the rosters will have to be expanded. I am on Vers' in that there are a lot of good players and a lot of good potential players don't make a roster each year. Think about Cajuste from last season. A feel good story that we all would have liked to keep for development. Consider our WR situation this year...we have several players that deserve the chance to develop but may not get that chance. As mentioned this could add as many as 128 players, or more, to the union. More players could/should mean larger salary caps.

Also since at least one starter will miss each game that means more valuable playing time for reserves and that can mean more opportunities for those players to get experience and parlay that into better contracts and quicker development.

Strategy in sitting players also means greater discussions in the media and among fans each week. And whether that is good or bad discussion, it means the NFL is in the limelight. As they say, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

This has a possibility to promote versatility among players. The easiest illustration of this is with kickers/punters. Consider the Browns POSSIBLE situation. Both Seibert, and the Scottish Hammer are able to kick FG's AND Punt. Consider more players like Randall who can play Safety AND CB. This does not have to mean that the game will be watered down. This also gives those College QB's who have to change positions in the NFL a better chance to hang around the NFL and become productive players.

With that said...

The point about the fans not getting to see their favorite player is very valid. While there are MANY season ticket holders, there are A LOT of fans that buy singe game tickets. How are they supposed to buy those games. You can make guesses before the season. But no one can predict the surprise teams each year. But the for the most part, fans will want to know who is playing in a particular game before buying their single game tickets. The strategy for sitting players will have to be on a week to week basis. And as such a preliminary depth chart for the next game will probably have to be made available. This can affect the betting, as well as the ticket sales. I can't imagine the games that Baker does not play will have the same amount of draw as the games he doesn't. I mean the game may already have a less draw because you would sit him in the games it would hurt the least. Those games have a smaller draw to begin with. So I think it will have a profound affect on the sale of single game tickets. And while it may affect betting, I don't see this as a negative nor a positive...It shouldn't be much different than the injury lists each week. And if the selection of those players is not done well...you can be caught with not having the players you need for an important late season playoff push.

While not necessarily a positive or negative....Joe Thomas' record consecutive snaps streak will last forever...lol

While I made the case that this doesn't have to mean the league will be watered down. That possibility does exist and is strong. The NFL is tough enough without having to learn multiple positions and techniques. And a players career is short enough without having that multiple position learning slowing your development and getting you cut earlier. So how you design and implement the development of players will be very important.

In the end...I think there are actually several positives for both the owners and the players. But the reality for fans is that despite having 2 more regular season games. The unstable gameday roster means that AT LEAST 1 starter will not be playing in every game. (22 starters plus Special Teams vs 18 games) And I don't think this benefits the fans. Sure the decisions on who to play will make interesting discussion. We don't go to or watch the games so that we can have interesting discussions on Monday. The only time you will see full starting rosters will most likely be in the playoffs. (Or vital games if possible) So even though we get 2 more valuable games than preseason...they are not as valuable as full starting roster games.

If this turns bad for the fans...then it is bad for both the owners and the players. Personally I don't see enough positives for the fans. The fans don't have a seat at the table...I don't think there is enough merit for the owners and players. You think any of these players want to be told they will have to sit 2 games...

This proposal has no chance of going through. And while it may have some good aspects...The best aspect is that it is interesting....that is not exactly the best starting point for a proposal...LOL

j/c

I'll add 'length of season' to the debate from strictly a fan perspective. The season now starts the second week of September...weekend after Labor Day Weekend. Perfect timing. End of summer...start of fall.

But the season is AT LEAST 4 months long as is. 5 months for the better teams. In today's world, that's a looooooong time for people to pay attention and spend the $$$. When your team is bad (sound familiar?) that 4 months seems like 9.

No one will lose sleep over this next comment, but if the season starts before Labor Day weekend, I probably will cease being a STH. The $$$ and time commitment is already great-enough without adding another # of weeks and intruding on the end-of-summer rituals. It's at a tipping point as is - and it doesn't help that I'm 55 and not 35. I'll still watch every game...sometimes multiple times...spend too much time reading and commenting about the Browns...and go see a live game when I can...but more is not always better.

j/c

I'm not sure I can actually follow the thought process of some posters.

How does cutting the number of preseason games equal adding a regular season game?

Let's look at it. The starters only play a few series each preseason game with the exception of game three. Even if the preseason games are cut down, I still believe you will have one preseason game where the starters will play a good portion of that game to make sure the system is somewhat fluid. So the amount of time that the starters will save on the field is minimal. Maybe the total of one quarter of football at best.

So you would be trading one quarter of preseason football for an entire 60 minute game of competitive football. Hardly an equal proportion.

And who here actually has the audacity to try and state that preseason games are as intense for your known starters? Sure, the bottom of your roster is trying their best to make plays and impress the coaching staff in order to make the team. But the starters know their position is secured and preseason games are nothing more than glorified practice for them. I would actually propose the coaching staff in all likelihood advises them to be cautious during preseason.

There is no merit in trying to compare exchanging preseason games for actual NFL games.

You may be confused because you did not correctly read what was said.

It's not just the elimination of the games themselves, but also cutting back on the length of training camp, where many, many injuries occur each year.

Hope that helps clear-up your confusion.

I'm still not seeing much of a correlation. Do injuries occur in camp? Yes, they certainly do. But is anyone actually suggesting that training camp carries the same risk of injury that an actual NFL game does?

To me that's akin to saying if you drive a race car, cutting down on your everyday driving means you can add more races to the schedule and your odds of injury are the same.

Objection! I move to strike the comments on the WRs. Yes, we lacked productive WRs ..... but we also lacked a QB with any semblance of talent. Last year we found our QB, and all of a sudden, we had productive WRs.

I am not sure if you were talking about my thought process...but it had my name in the reply...So...I will try and lay it out...If it was not directed at me...well maybe my last post won't seem as convoluted for others...

Most proposals are to remove 2 Preseason, add 2 regular season. the number of games doesn't change. Owners get more money due to meaningful games the Fans get better value for their tickets. Heck players might get more money for it as well.

But the players take all the risk. As you said they play another 60-90 minutes of hard hitting football. They are at serious risk of injury...etc.

The new proposal, and the topic of this thread, has an added stipulation that the players can only play 16 out of the 18 regular season games. So they are NOT exposed to a greater risk of injury as they play the same amount of regular season games as they do now. And they lose two preseason games that they hate playing in in the first place.

I played devil's advocate to try and find some good in this proposal...(because ultimately I don't think this can work) And there are a couple things that can be construed as good...even if on the surface it looks stupid...But as I said, ultimately, I don't think this can work.

I will concede that y-town is correct in that our QB’s stunk in the time period he’s reffering too ... point conceded ...

but i STRENUOUSLY (don’t make me use the bold type option .. *L*) object your honor to poor QB play being the issue with our talent at WR .. at this time i would now like to present into evidence the proof that none of our WR’s left here and had decent careers sans a few over the last 20 years ... the list includes just from the last few years:

C. Coleman
K. Britt
D. Bowe
T. Pryor (some thought he was a STUD we’ve been so bad ... *L* ..)

Can i please stop now your honor ... the list is endless and i wanna cry all ready ... please be a merciful judge and let me stop ... *L* ..

No, it wasn't directed at you. That's why it started with j/c which means "just clicking". That means it's a general comment that isn't directed toward anyone but just a general comment for the entire board.

I'm still not a fan of the idea. I'm not really interested in seeing full priced NFL games with a back up QB. It waters down the sport. I guess something could, and it has been said, about it showing the ability of which teams have the best depth. But who really wants to pay full price for a second tier product?

If that was something that interested me I would watch the CFL. You know, where top tier players who couldn't make it in the NFL go to play.

I'm with Diam on this one. It waters down the sport and tries to sell fans on the idea that they deserve lass than what they're paying for.

Check out the date. The pre-season is 4 games. The regular is 512 games plus playoffs...say 20 more games.

The stats show the injury rate is higher in the preseason then the regular season.

On concussions as an example the rate in season is .3396% In preseason the rate jumps to .66+%.

You can track all sorts of injuries for the last 6-7 years.

https://www.playsmartplaysafe.com/newsroom/reports/2017-injury-data/

That's a nice stat but it doesn't take a lot of things into account.

How many players actually play in the preseason? The point you simply can not dispute, well maybe you can, is that the games are not as intense, the action isn't as critical for the starters and those starters do not play a significant amount of time.

Now if you want to get into the gross amount of injuries, that's fine. But many of those injuries occur to marginal players fighting to make it in the league. Just hoping to make a roster or practice squad.

When you are playing 90 man rosters which many aren't actually NFL caliber players, you're certainly going to have injuries. Not so much with your star players who play very little in the preseason. And actually, when you're speaking in terms of watering down the product, those are the players you're actually talking about.

J/C

I highly doubt the players will agree to reduce the preseason to 2 games, in order to add 2 more regular season games.

Everyone thinks this is the simple idea, but most starters don't play much in the preseason to begin with. So taking away and adding the two reg. season games is still more playing time for them.

The only way for I see the players agreeing to 18 games is 1. Weed legalized 2. Larger contracts - much larger

It doesn't matter who sustains the injury. The bottom line is the chances of getting hurt in the preseason is greater then during the regular season.

My theory is that as you have guys fighting for their football life, they are more likely to make a late hit attempting to gain attention. Vets will quit at the whistle. The rooks or bounce around guys might play a bit through the whistle.

The thing is, they usually pull all the starters out together for the most part. Like I said, if you broke it down to starters and especially star players, I doubt the injury rate is as high as the regular season.

I don't buy into "an injury is an injury" when you are talking about players who will most likely never be starters in the NFL. That has zero to do with the topic of "watering down the game".

Don't buy in. The fact remains the chance for injury is greater in the preseason.

I agree with Vers. Camp needs to be shorter. Mini camps should be shortened or eliminated all together, and preseason games need to be cut to two games tops. Maybe even 1.

If you don't want to believe the facts, cool. You will take the last word no doubt. I don't need to say anything else because there is nothing substantive to say beyond what I already have.

It's more about how facts actually impact the topic at hand that I don't buy into.

Whole article here.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1296...g-just-improved

That's your choice and your right. I am not worried about trying to convince you. I think more injuries occur during camp because players aren't in football shape and a lot of pulled muscles occur. I do not think adding one or even two games to the regular season is going to significantly increase injuries, especially if we add a bye week. Of course, that is my choice and right.

I think that playing on a short week....see Thursday night games......increases the risk of injury. But again, that has nothing to do w/adding a game or two to the season.

Oh snap..............how about that? LOL

+

18 = 2 more times a year, the game is about to start.