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

https://www.cleveland.com/browns/2019/07...-idea-poll.html

So the NFL is proposing 18 games again. But they add a wrinkle in a bid to appeal to players that says a player can play in only play in 16...

I don't think it will fly. And I am not so sure it is really feasible...But the concept is interesting to think about.

Imagine the fanangling of the roster to match up week to week.
Almost like a Baseball manager.....The rosters....I would think they would have to expand(hence more players getting paid...)

Again...a little crazy and I don't see it happening...but kind of funky to explore and talk about...

Whores ...

Dumbest idea ever ...

I would prefer 18 regular season games an 2 or less preseason games, but this proposal is beyond ignorant and it will never work.

It's a silly ploy to get the income from two more televised games while giving fans an inferior product and still only paying their big money players for 16 games.

The current system is an even bigger rip-off for season ticket holders. You're forced to pay full freaking price for two exhibition games. When I had my season tix, I couldn't even give my preseason tickets away most of the time. It infuriated me having to pay full price for two games that meant nothing.

But yeah, this new plan sucks canal water.

Imagine some of these bad coaches trying to figure out when to sit what players.

At first I thought it was a crazy idea but the more I think about it the more I like it.

It would reward the teams that draft well and manage the cap well

It would require more strategy as to when you would choose to sit certain players

It may require expanding the roster from 53 to 56 or 57 which would appease the player's union as there are now possibly 128 more full time jobs. I think the players could get this concession from the owners.

It could have an impact on the landscape of player contracts which would benefit the owners possibly as now it becomes more vital to have good depth which requires more financial investment in the bottom of the roster players leaving less money for the top end players.....money would need to be more evenly distributed throughout the roster.

just give it some thought.... It may not work as I'm sure there are lots of points I haven't initially thought of but I don't think it is ' beyond ignorant '

Have you considered the gambling and fantasy football circumstances?

Have you considered the public and media scrutiny that teams [coaches/front offices] would be under on which players they chose to sit in which games?

Have you considered the second guessing after a loss?

I'm not saying any of that in a harsh way. I just don't think that plan has a chance of becoming a reality.

16 games is too many ... injuries with another two games ... no thanks ..

Adding two games would water it down enough ... add two games and then mandatorily have to sit each player 2 games ...

Good luck in the games u sit your starting QB ... there’s not near enough good starters now much less decent back ups ...

Naaa ... they been whores for awhile now and this is just them being bigger whores ...

If they did this i’d More than likely be done with the nfl .. IMO its a watered down product as it is ..

Wow. I didn't even think about the QB issue. That's a great point.

You may be right Vers....I just started to think about it. I do know that I would like 2 more weeks of football. Being a Browns fan since 1984 there haven't been many seasons that have gone past 16 weeks for us.

The public and media scrutiny is part of the business as well as the second guessing...it would be that way for all teams. These guys aren't volunteering at the local YMCA. It's a big boy business and they are paid as such.

It very well may not have a chance at becoming a reality but I think it is worth investigating for all parties.

I could be wrong, too. It wouldn't be the first time. LOL

So, you have to sit your #1 qb for an important late season game and your #2 goes down. Yeah, this will work.

Sit your #1 QB earlier in the season then

Be diligent in finding a good back up QB

Lots of strategy.....

The better run organizations will be rewarded which is how it should be.

This idea is almost as idiotic as MLB's proposals to speed up games, like forcing relievers to face 3 batters before allowing another pitching change, or placing a baserunner at 2nd base at the start of extra innings. I don't understand why sports franchises can't resist futzing around with their product, especially the NFL. Man, owning an NFL franchise is basically a license to print money - just sit down, shut up, and watch the cash roll in.

No, professional sports...especially football where you're playing less than 20 games per season....should be your best players against my team's best players. That's what NFL fans pay to see. I don't want to see Drew Stanton on the field unless it's absolutely necessary.

I think an 18 game season, mandating players can only play in 16 is a DUMB idea. Dumb for the players, dumb for the fans.

But, makes more money for the nfl. Follow the money.









I remember when nascar was huge!!! Tracks couldn't add seats fast enough. Then, nascar started dorking with the rules, and attendance went down. Down so quick, tracks started tearing seats out, and tarping unsold sections of seats.

Bristol used to have a waiting list for tickets tens of thousands long. Now? You can walk up raceday and buy a ticket.

Seating for 165,000, filled. And then? A few years later? Attendance of around 40,000.

I first heard local sports talking head mention this, up to a year ago,

There is nothing wrong with this idea.

whether it gets adopted or not is yet to be seen.

( might be hard to finagle all, all, "all" the starting spots, I mean it'd be top priority to decide when to sit all the stars and stuff,

but when you get down to folks like the "center" and the "kicker" , after you decided on the best time to sit all the position players,

it would make for some tough decisions.

But then again,
We already had little protest accepting an 8 game suspension for Hunt,

This is nothing more than a negotiating ploy. It is a starting point to try and negotiate a 18 game season.

I agree with just about everyone that this is a bad idea as it sits. With the billions that are on the table I can see them going to 18 games. Trade offs could be even less hitting during practice and abolishing at least 2 preseason games.

I've always advocated forcing the NFL to charge reduced prices for the 2 preseason games.

Yeah the new rules for nascar, for me particularly the playoff ruined it, But I think alot has to do with the drivers are mostly a bunch of whiny ass primodona's.. The good days were when you had earnhardt, wallace, elliot, martin and those guys..true men's men. The drivers now care more about how they look on camera or commercials. Hate what it's become

Leave it at 16.

16 Sundays we cherish the NFL. As a whole, the nfl makes enough money. The players already sacrifice their bodies enough.

It went that way because sponsors wanted the 'all american' look out of the teams they paid upwards of $20 million a season.

Racing became secondary - looking good for the sponsors was primary.

They used to have 45-55 cars show up for a race that only took 43. Now? Nascar cut the number down - because drivers didn't show up.

Show me the money, I'll show you the winner.



And now the nfl is thinking about money - not product on the field. Odd, isn't it?

I really don't understand what appears to me to be overreaction, by everyone to this idea.
In my opinion, what's better than 18 games? 19 games. Why wait all year for the season to have to start.

Maybe every member of this board is a player, or former player, I'm just a football Fan.

I want 18 games and less exhibition football. Not a big fan of sitting players.

Go to two bye weeks. The entire league each week except maybe 6 teams to have a Thursday, Sunday and Monday game. They sit the following week

Bye after week 6 and bye after week 12.

Expand rosters to 58 players. Still maintain a practice squad.

Obviously the players get a larger cut.

Our club had a set of tickets donated for our use and to raise money for the local's causes. We used to donate the pre-season games to the kids clubs in Cleveland. Always felt good doing that. Cancelled this when it got too pricey for our donor. But it was good karma all around for awhile.

Edit PS: This idea is nasty. Moneygrubbing at its lowest. Season is too long as is. Cut some preseason nonsense. If I buy a ticket, I want to see players if healthy. Inactive because of downtime for this lunacy sucks. Do I get to see the active roster with inactives before I buy a ticket? And which two games day want to sit BM for if he is fine? Sucks Cuyahoga firewater: Dangerous for you and bad for The Game.

I like this proposal.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/packe...eason-schedule/

If NFL owners get their way, there's a chance we could see an 18-game regular season schedule coming in the very near future.

The league's 32 owners are currently negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement with the NFLPA and one idea that's already been brought to the table is a proposal by the ownership group that would expand the season to 18 games. If players are worried about the health ramifications of playing that many games, the owners have an answer for that: Players would be limited to only taking part in 16 of those 18 games.

If you think that second proposal sounds like a gimmicky idea, you're not the only who thinks that. Packers President Mark Murphy told Pro Football Talk he feels the same way. Instead of going to an 18-game schedule, Murphy has a much better proposal for expanding the regular season and it's the one the NFL should consider.

So what's Murphy's idea?

The Packers president would like to see the NFL add just one game to the regular season schedule, but with a twist.

"There's some things that we can do in the season structure that would allow us to play more games at neutral sites, either internationally or non-NFL cities that would help us grow the game," Murphy said, via The Athletic.

To put that in layman's terms, Murphy would prefer a 17-game schedule with that extra game being played as a neutral site game or an international game. Basically, that means every team in the league would either play at a neutral site or an international site every year.

If the NFL were to go with Murphy's proposal, that would likely allow the league to let more cities around the world host an international games. If there are 16 international games per year, it wouldn't be crazy to see China, Germany or Brazil hosting a game at some point.

With neutral site games, it's possible we could see NFL teams play at college stadiums. The Lions could play at the Big House in Ann Arbor or a Bengals-Browns game could potentially be played at Ohio State. As Murphy mentioned, the NFL could also put neutral games in non-NFL cities, which would potentially open the door for places like San Antonio and Portland to host one game per year.

Although players seem to hate the 18-game proposal, the 17-game idea seems to be gaining traction. Former Colts punter Pat McAfee suggested an idea similar to Murphy's.


Pat McAfee
✔
@PatMcAfeeShow
Answer~> 17 games.. 2 bye weeks.

2 preseason games for known roster players.

1 preseason game for bubble players.@NFL, you’re welcome. https://twitter.com/profootballtalk/status/1149728544026759170 …

ProFootballTalk
✔
@ProFootballTalk
The idea has been percolating for years; finally, the NFL has proposed to the NFLPA the idea of an 18-game season with a 16-games-per-player limit https://wp.me/p14QSB-b1tv


Like McAfee, Murphy would also like to see the NFL shorten its preseason.

"We're looking at the overall structure of the season, and quite honestly, our preseason is not very good," Murphy said.

As for the 18-game proposal, Murphy is adamantly against that.

"I would be very concerned about the health and safety aspects of adding two regular season games,"Murphy said. "And so I think there's a number of things we're looking at."

NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith is also adamantly against an 18-game schedule, which means the NFL might want to start seriously thinking about Murphy's plan as a compromise.

"I don't see an 18-game schedule -- under any circumstance -- being in the best interest of our players," Smith said Friday, via ESPN.com. "If somebody wants to make an 18-game proposal, we'll look at it. I haven't seen anything that makes me think that it would be good for the players."

One other thing that could be coming to the NFL in 2021 is an expanded playoff system, which is something the league's owners will likely also be pushing in negotiations.

"I think also…(is) the possibility of expanding the playoffs," Murphy said. "I think that could be a positive for the league."

The current CBA doesn't expire until after the 2020 season, which means once the two sides agree to a new deal that may or may not include an expanded regular season, it won't take effect until 2021.

Whores i tell ya .. whores ... *L* ...

The products watered down enough due to having to manny teams and all the injuries ... even adding 1 game will just ad to the injuries and water it down even more ...

Dang whores ...

I like the idea of one extra game, along with an extra bye, and a reduction in preseason games.

A tentative yes to those.

We don't need more teams in the playoffs, though. There's already enough, the perfect amount.

Edit: I'm leaning heavily against playing more regular season games.

All I care about is reducing the number of preseason games.

However, the NFL isn't going to just chop preseason games where they get full price on tickets w/out adding games to recoup for that economic loss.

IMO reduce the amount of pre-season games to 3, start the season 1 week earlier and have 2 bye weeks so the players can have more time to rest and heal. Most of us can't wait for the season to start and the 4th pre-season game means nothing anyway. Even if we have to go one more week in February it really doesn't matter to anyone except the 2 SB teams.

Commissioner confirms NFL wants new CBA by start of regular season

Mike Florio,ProFootball Talk on NBC Sports

It’s been reported, somewhere, that the NFL wants to have a new Collective Bargaining Agreement in place before the start of the 2019 regular season, the NFL’s 100th. Recently, Commissioner Roger Goodell confirmed it.

“That’s certainly our intent,” Goodell said on that point during an interview with Julia Boorstin of CNBC. “Our intent is to make sure we have a Collective Bargaining Agreement, we’ve been in it for eight years. It’s worked very well, mainly for our fans but also for our players and our clubs, and so we have the structure of a system that works quite well. We’re continuing that dialogue, there are obviously changes we all want on both sides, and I think those are things that’ll improve us and try to make the Collective Bargaining [Agreement] continue to be successful for all the parties, and I hope we’ll do that.”

The fact that the league admittedly wants to get a new deal in place before the start of the season gives the NFL Players Association some leverage, as previously explained. The challenge for the NFLPA will be to play their hand without overplaying it and, in turn, blowing the chance to get more favorable terms if they can get a deal done before the season starts.

It nevertheless remains difficult to get an agreement fully negotiated and finalized by the time the Packers and Bears launch the season on September 5. Rosters remain at 90 until August 30, expanding dramatically the pool of employees who would have to vote on the CBA. Then comes a compressed window of days to sell the agreement to the newly-formed rosters before kickoff.

It’s possible for a tentative deal to be reached by September, with the formal team-by-team votes done as quickly as the circumstances warrant. Still, plenty of work needs to be done. Even if it seems that the league is happy to retain the overall structure of the deal, both sides are going to want potentially significant changes, whether it’s stadium credits (from the league’s perspective) or an adjustment to gross revenue split (from the union’s perspective).

Regardless, it’s now clear that the league wants to get something done sooner than later.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20...regular-season/

I would support:

--*Eliminate 1 or 2 preseason games. [I would prefer two, but I get the money thing.]

--Starting the season one or two weeks earlier. Preferably two.

--Adding an additional bye week.

--Expanding the rosters to 58. Unlike some on here, I think there is an abundance of talent out there.

*I have wished that preseason games be eliminate completely. We didn't have them in high school. We didn't have them in college. NFL players don't need them. Teams could scrimmage if they want the work, just like teams do at lower levels. Of course, I understand that the greed of the league would never allow that to occur.

I read all the responses and want to respond to the general concepts.
I'm glad I finally heard the "extra bye week" idea written somewhere outside of this message board, meaning the packer president article title, because that's one of the easisest ideas to accept and I haven't seen almost any negative reaction to it.

I keep reading the idea of cutting the pre-season and using that cut of volume to become the addition of content to the regular season

But the problem, I think, is the owners for better or worse (agreed worse), already have that revenue coming from these games where (easily in the first and 4th pre-season games currently) League stars don't play even a full half, on average.

So they (owners) are not even going to be seeing the other side, (players union) as having given up anything if we see an "end up" (what ends up happening), of cutting the pre-season to = any add to the game total.

Don't pay attention to this next part, looking for an answer, answer "expand the pre-season!, propose Six! ennnnh! big negative.
propose 5! preseason games, ennnh,
propose 5 preseason before you cut it to 3, let the vets play in 2 get the 2nd bye week, add 2 Wild Card teams per conf, ( KEEP) The first round bye in the playoffs, it's been almost universally positively accepted for the last 20.ought years


What do I got, I got 2 preseason for vets, a rookies only preseason week, an 18 game regular season with 2 bye's that's 20 weeks, 8 teams in the playoffs per conference, 6 wild card games... OH! I've hit a snag.
(because even if an interconference wild card playoff game can't continue to have winners move on in single elimination without returning to each conference it's own set, and have the conf, champions = super bowl participants
Got It!
Take that final 18th game off the final end of the regular season, cut back to 17 reg season, Use "that" week as the expanded wild card week "KEEP THE 1ST ROUND BYE",it's universally accepted

Ok, so checking the calendar wise, I've added 3 full weeks, and I don't want to sacrifice any pre superbowl bye either, so it could be argued 4 weeks, of actual game broadcast football, so Owners should appreciate that, right?

So currently, (in my mind) my only snag is, playoff format with 8 teams per conference instead of 6, with still keeping 2 teams having a bye.

My latest answer was, How does one make that final 18th game season week, (week 20, tentavish), make it the first of 2 wild card playoff weeks, ... Instead of a full on final week of the regular season.

Whew. I see win win here, and I couldn't have reached it if I hadn't started with the donkey backwards idea of expand the pre-season first!

Ok, back to reality.

Players would get, season would go,
2 pre-season games, back to back, then a Bye for vets, a rookies only pre-season game.
Then start of a 17 game 19 week regular season with 2 bye weeks included:
The playoffs would add a round, what is currently
Wild card round, Divisional round: Championship Round: Bye before the SuperBowl: and SuperBowl round;

Would become, Play in round: Wild Card round: Divisional round: Champoinship round: Bye before the SuperBowl: and SuperBowl round;

Here's the rub, the negotiated thing could be, how many teams even play in that play in round, zero teams? 32 teams? how about only 4?
Do teams like the Patriots get a 2 week bye before they start the playoffs???, Sure why not! I'm all for it.

Win Win! I'm a fan of football, Win-Win that's what I want.

We are pretty much in agreement on this. I forgot about expanding the roster but that too makes sense and is a good idea. Those last 5 players won't cost the owners much. They can well afford it.

As a fan, I'm all for adding more games. But the stipulation is dumb.

I’m surprised so many are in favor of watering the league down even more ... to many injuries as it is ... adding 60 more minutes of “real” football isn’t going to make that any better ...

I like quality football ... not games that are unwatchable and there seems to be at least one of those a week ...

Can u imagine having to sit Bake two games ... Brady ... i guess when we had Kizer, Hogan and Cody as our qb room it wouldn’t have hurt much that year ... *LOL* ...