DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Owners moving forward on 18 game season for 2012

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/13819943/nfl-moving-forward-tageting-18game-season-for-2012

NFL moving forward on 18-game season, targeting 2012

CBSSports.com wire reports
Aug. 25, 2010 ATLANTA -- NFL owners are eager to increase the regular season from 16 to 18 games.

The players aren't so sure.

During a five-hour meeting at a posh hotel in downtown Atlanta, the push to add two more games to the regular season picked up steam Wednesday -- at least among those who sign the checks.

"I think it's a win-win all around," said Bob Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots.

The owners also unanimously approved Stan Kroenke's proposal to purchase majority ownership of the St. Louis Rams, assuming he turns over control of two other teams he owns -- the NBA's Denver Nuggets and the NHL's Colorado Avalanche -- to his son.

Kroenke owns 40 percent of the downtrodden Rams and exercised his right to purchase the rest of the team from the Rosenbloom family for a reported $750 million.

"Obviously, all of us know and respect Stan," commissioner Roger Goodell said. "He's been a terrific owner in the NFL and we're confident he will continue to be a great owner."

Kroenke must turn over operational and financial control of the Nuggets and Avalanche to his 30-year-old son, Josh, by the end of the year. He must give up his majority stake in the teams by December 2014 to meet NFL rules against cross-ownership of franchises in other NFL cities.

But talks on the expanded season dominated most of the meeting.

Goodell pointed out that the league already has the right to impose an 18-game schedule -- and keep four preseason games for each team -- under the current labor agreement with the players. But that contract expires after this season, and it's clear the expanded schedule will be a central issue in talks on a new collective bargaining agreement.

The owners would like to keep the season at 20 weeks, reducing the number of preseason games from four to two.

"We want to do it the right way for everyone, including the players, the fans and the game in general," Goodell said. "There's a tremendous amount of momentum for it. We think it's the right step."

The owners held off on voting on a specific proposal that could be presented to the players union. Among the issues that still must be resolved: when to start the expanded regular season, possible roster expansion to cope with more games, and changes in training camp and offseason routines to come up with ways for evaluating younger players who wouldn't have as many preseason games to make an impression.

"We want to continue to address a variety of issues before putting together a specific proposal, which our negotiating team will provide to the union's negotiating team," Goodell said. "There's tremendous support for it. Almost all the questions, all the discussions, are how to do it in a way that's fan friendly."

Around the NFL, however, many players questioned the wisdom of making an already grueling season even longer. At the very least, they want more money -- and several proposed changes in the rules governing injured players, or adding an extra bye week to deal with the grind.

"With 16 games, every game is important and therefore the fans are very into it, the stadiums are packed because they know if their team loses, it pushes them further and further away from making the playoffs," Cincinnati quarterback Carson Palmer said. "I think if you go to 18, each game kind of loses a little bit of its significance."

The players clearly expect to be receive a bigger chunk of the multi-billion-dollar NFL pie if they're going to be putting their bodies on the line in two more games that count.

"Obviously the players want to be compensated for two more games," San Francisco 49ers linebacker Matt Wilhelm said. "That's the one thing the players have to get met."

They are also concerned about an increased risk of injuries and fret that it could shorten their careers or increase the number of health problems they endure after retirement.

"I would vote to eliminate two preseason games and then keep it at a 16-game season because the longer you're out there playing, the more your body breaks down," Chicago Bears tight end Desmond Clark said. "When you get into December, you're like walking zombies. You can't feel your joints."

Cleveland Browns linebacker Scott Fujita said the timing of the proposal is odd, considering the owners want the players to accept a smaller share of the revenue in the next labor agreement.

"They are asking you to play more games and put yourself at more risk, and they are also asking us to take a pay cut," he said. "That's a lot to ask. All those things don't make a whole lot of sense. We need to sit down and talk through it all and find out what it is they're really trying to do and see if it makes sense or not."

But Kraft said the expanded season is the most obvious step to bring in more money while the economy is struggling.

"I really think going to an 18-game season is critical to us getting a labor deal," he said. "There's not a lot ways in this economic environment we can generate incremental revenues. That's the best way.

"The other thing," he added, "our fans have said pretty loud and clear they'd like us to have fewer preseason games."

Several players and coaches have pointed out that having only two preseason games would likely make it more difficult for fringe players to get enough of a look to make the team.

Already, teams have been experimenting with joint workouts in training camp, believing those sessions could help replace the shorter preseason. This year, for instance, the Atlanta Falcons worked out with both New England and Jacksonville.

"If it was a two-game preseason, then the starters are going to see most of that time because they've got to get ready for the season, so if you're third string, good luck," said Indianapolis linebacker Gary Brackett, the Colts' defensive captain. "When I was a rookie, I needed every bit of those four games."

But some figure it's a foregone conclusion that the owners will get their way.

"Personally, I don't see how it helps the game, or the quality of the game," said Barry Cofield, a defensive tackle for the New York Giants. "But if they demand it, they will probably get it."

The players always have a choice - they can play, or they can not play. They have that option. They are not entitled to 16 regular season games.

jc

another article about the 18 game season.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/08/25/league-wants-to-move-forward-with-18-game-season/

League wants to move forward with 18-game season
Posted by Mike Florio on August 25, 2010 8:44 PM ET
To no surprise, the NFL continues to be moving toward an "enhancement" of the regular season from 16 to 18 games.

On Wednesday in Atlanta, the league's owners expressed support for the move. No vote to proceed with the shift from 16 regular-season games and four preseason games to 18 regular-season games and two preseason games was taken.

But no vote really needs to be taken; it's obvious that the league wants to do it.

"I think it's a win-win all around," Patriots owner Bob Kraft said, per the Associated Press.

Commissioner Roger Goodell, who said that the enhancement would be implemented in 2012, noted publicly for the first time the fact that the current labor deal already authorizes an 18-game regular season and a four-game preseason, which would result in 22 total games. As we explained on May 24, Article XXXVIII, Section 12 of the CBA gives the league the ability to increase the regular season to 18 games by giving at least 90 days notice to the NFLPA. Article XXXVII, Section 6 limits the preseason to four games. (The teams in the Hall of Fame game play a fifth time in the preseason.)

The problem, of course, is that the current labor deal is being scuttled. Thus, the union likely will contend that, if the owners wanted to impose an 18-game regular season pursuant to their current rights under the CBA, the owners shouldn't have pulled the plug on the CBA two years early.

And if the league takes the position at the bargaining table that ownership already has bargained for the right to conduct up to 22 preseason and regular-season games per year, the union should respond by pointing out that the union already has bargained for the right to 59.6 cents on the dollar, after roughly $1 billion is taken off the top to cover certain expenses.

Regardless of any past deals, everything will be on the table when it's time to negotiate the next labor contract. Later tonight, we'll have some details about what the players likely will want in return for adding two regular-season games.

There ya' go :

But Kraft said the expanded season is the most obvious step to bring in more money while the economy is struggling.

"I really think going to an 18-game season is critical to us getting a labor deal," he said. "There's not a lot ways in this economic environment we can generate incremental revenues. That's the best way.



This isn't about The Game.

Play the 18 games.

Keep the player % the same.

Add some to the billion skim to cover expenses as those expenses have increased

Give 2 bye weeks...at weeks 5-6 and 11-12. One week you basically shut down one conference, the next you shut down the other. That way there is no competitive advantage/disadvantage as to when you get the bye.

Increase rosters by 4-5 players and practice squads by 4-5 and allow first year practice squad players to be placed there without having to clear a waiver process so teams can develop talent. Again...first year players...after that they have to be waived so you can't just keep a guy on the PS forever without giving him the opportunity to latch on somewhere else.

I know they say they don't want to start the season earlier, but I would like to see it kick off Labor Day weekend so the season doesn't run 2 weeks deeper in to the the crappy weather.

Some good ideas there,...

There has been talk of increasing the roster size for the regular season to as much as 70. I have also hear about some potential changes to IR, chages to the "active list", and potentially eliminating the practice squad.

This is one of the few instances I'm siding with the players. It's all about trying to squeeze every last buck out of an already lucrative enterprise, no matter the consequences. Let alone screwing up the record books.

Even though I liked some of 'Peen's ideas, I don't support going to 18. There isn't a real need to do so. JMO.

I wouldn't mind 18 if they put them at the beginning of the season (current end of preseason) and cut preseason to two games.

I think they should have 18 games. Were each division gets a bye-week each month, so there are 3 games each month per team.

This way Football season will last 6 months before the playoffs.

That way we shorten the off-season from 8 months to 5

It also puts the SuperBowl in April or May, allowing decent weather to hold a SB anywhere.

I think its a mistake. The superbowl champ isn't going to be the best team, it's going to be the luckiest team injury wise. You won't be getting teams at their peak. it's already so much of a grind great teams can be decimated by the time the playoffs roll around. Add in the fact that teams are already laying off once they've claimed playoff spots, it's just too many.

I'd love football every week all year, but it's bad for the game. I think they had it right at 14 game seasons.

I'm all for more football that counts. 4 preseason games is terrible.

Yes the record books will need to basically start over but more football that counts over old records sounds good to me.

I like that Kraft basically said it's about the $ and being upfront. What part of the NFL is not about the $? This is no different than anything else the NFL does - all about the $$$$.

If the Pre-Season is cut to 2 games, and the expansion of the Regular Season to 18 games is accompanied by expanded rosters and a modified IR rule, then I am 100% for it.

If the rosters are expanded, and the "active/inactive" crap is done away with, then teams can play young players at the end of blowouts to see what they can do in actual game situations.

Expand the roster to 65 players. Modify the IR so that there can be a short term and long term list. Maybe lose one active roster spot on gameday for each player on the short term list ... but have that overall roster spot available to use for another player. The long term or "season long" IR would remain unchanged.

There could be a lot more opportunities for players to be developed than with the current system that allows for very little "on field" development of backup players. The idiotic "3rd QB" rule could be done away with.

I can see a lot of positive in an 18 game season if they tweak a few other things as well.

Quote:

---

The superbowl champ isn't going to be the best team, it's going to be the luckiest team injury wise.

---

Like when the Pats were lucky that Bledsoe got injured?

The best argument I've heard so far is that some teams could possibly have a playoff lock and seed established by week 14 and start resting starters for the the last 4 games( in a Colts like fashion). That would compound an already existing problem by totally screwing up the playoff picture.

Boo. I don't like this idea.

I knew it would be coming, as they have been talking about it for a while now. I just don't like the fact of how it will screw up the history of the league. 2,000 yard rushers will be more common, other records will fall. Guys who have been healthy all year will wear down before the playoffs, when they're needed the most. But we all know money makes the world go 'round.

I just rather keep it the same. If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

If it ain't broke

They make millions in a bad economy, but it's "broke."

I agree,...it's just going to water things down.

Then, after it's STILL successful regardless, college football is gonna want to do this too.

The history part ?? That's inconsequential.

Quote:

---

Add in the economic impact to the cities involved. Hotels and restaurants get a big boost. Lot attendants, souvenir hawkers, airlines, car rental agencies, vendors...etc, etc.

---

Excellent point

The NFL will save the economy.

Exactly

I don't understand anyone not wanting 2 more real games. It really makes no sense other than the players point about the added grind. Expanded rosters could help with that. You wouldn't see as many 'starters" on kick teams as an example

I don't really "mind" having the 2 more games,...the Catch 22 is, more players means more expense. Obviously the owners will try to go with the same amount of players though, methinks.

This is about more profit. Nothing else.

I think it's a good high-level idea.

Problem is, we all know the players aren't paid for 20 games. They're paid for the 16 regular season games + playoffs. If they think they'll just convert two preseason game to regular season ones and not give the players more money, the owners are dumb. Heck, the owners want the players to take a paycut in general, regardless of more regular season games. AND the owners want a rookie salary structure too.

There's NO WAY this will all happen. The players will strike. Heck, I would back them too.

The owners are obvioulsy asking for the world + some so when it's really time to negotiate, they can take a few things off the table and look like they're giving in a bit.

I really feel we'll see a lockout or strike next year. These sides are too far off.

Agree,...something's gonna have to give, and it'll end up being my wallet,....

Yup, in the form of concessions and souvenirs.

2 more real games means means 1 more game per team with packed stadium selling beer, dogs, soda, parking, t-shirts, jerseys. etc. Add in the extra for stadium advertisers to get another day of exposure, the TV commercials that go along with it, etc. It all adds up to a lot more cash. Something the preseason games don't get the same value out of.

Can't argue that point,...

Quote:

---

Heck, the owners want the players to take a paycut in general, regardless of more regular season games. AND the owners want a rookie salary structure too.

---

I'm thinking that the 18 game season is a lost leader. The owners are throwing that out there but will drop it if they can get a Rookie Salary Cap.

Speaking of a Rookie Cap.. I believe thats a good idea. Because of the crazy numbers a rook gets, it causes a guy who's paid his dues to have to take a cut. it's getting out of hand when the folks that have proven thier ability take a back seat to those that haven't proven anything..

The Present system that rewards a rookie with 50 million guaranteed (as in the case of Bradford) makes no sense to me. THe rest of the world doesn't work that way.. Why should the NFL.

::sarcasm::

Well,...well, the NFL is "different, because that's not apples to apples,..."

::sarcasm off::

I'll try my argument one more time with the rookie salary structure plan (RSSP):

1. The owner want it to save money.
2. The vets want it because they don't like seeing unproven rooks paid more than them.
3. The vets will only agree to it if they get the difference, which the NFL won't do.
4. The vets also know the rookie contracts are also a driving force for vet contracts. You don't think Bradfords deal will be used as the bar the next vet QB come up for free agency. So, by approving the rookie salary structure plan, they're also stopping the additional force that drives up player salaries. So, they'll want a system that keeps that growth in the future. The owners will say no.
5. The owners want ALL players, vets and rooks, to take a % paycut in the next CBA.

It's nice and easy to say, "unproven rookies are getting too much money". But there's more to just picking a new salary structure plan and voting on it. The players want that money. So do the owners. Not to mention they both want more on top of that. It's not going to be as easy as some think.

The vets would be STUPID to vote for a RSSP without some sort of money coming back to them.

Maybe rookie pay figures into FA contracts a little, but I would say it is mostly based on the pay of others in your position at your level, while that might include a rookie it isn't the main precedent.

They're all going to make more somehow. And that's why your remarks are correct -- It's only a matter of who gives up what.

j/c

I would love to see the roster size increase. One of the post above said to as much as 70! Can you imagine the depth you could build by developing players on a 70 man roster?

Not only that but if the players want a certain percentage of the oney to go to players, a 70 man roster speads that money around. Add that to a cap for rookies and then the system starts looking like a normal business where top producers and seasoned vets earn the lions share.

70 man roster + 18 games + rookie caps = Good Football for Fans!

I agree it isn't going to be that many players...I am thinking maybe 4-5 tops.