Some of you fellas aren't getting it. That idea is worse in owners eyes. They get paid by the number of games broadcast, not the number of 'weeks' they play. So expanding rosters and adding a bye week actually costs them more by keeping the number of 'billable' games constant but adds more mouths to feed by increasing the player pool.
They'll have no interest in that formula. This entire scheme is about increasing the gross revenue substantially. That means 18 games per team. Whether we as fans get a watered down product with backups playing in place of stars means nothing to these fucks.
since you'll need a backup for your backup (err, 2 game starter) which can't be your franchise QB...
Oh, these idiots could come up with an injured player clause where you may play the guy who sat case of injury. This is stupid on so many levels. Goes a long way in disproving forward evolution in humans.
RE: This is the most cockeyed idiotic proposal ever heard of in the NFL Â
If they want the 18 game season cut two of the pre season games and be done with it. The quality of football we watch the first month is already complete shit so what's another two weeks of garbage football in the scheme of things. Give the players a few more percentage points of gross revenue in the next CBA and everyone is happy.
In order to pull that off successfully, the players must be made to practice A LOT MORE to actually be ready to play opening day.
They aren't ready to play Week 1 as it is. We wait until about week 4 for the quality of play to approach the professional level we were used to before this watered down CBA.
Neither the owners or players care if the product is garbage for the first four weeks so why will they care if it's shite for 6 weeks now? Answer: they won't. No matter what the finalized CBA extension or renegotiation looks like you can bet it won't increase practice time in any significant way.
about safety. The are driven - and I get it - by bigger margins.
Fortunately for them, the players union is one of the dumbest unions in sports, if not the world. And the owners dominate them at the bargaining table. It's embarrassing.
If I'm the players, I counter with a 14 game schedule and guaranteed contracts. Because the economics of the NFL system are absolutely insane and grossly one-sided.
It's time to right the horrific, incompetent groundwork started by that dunce Gene Upshaw.
RE: You might want to gather some data about those rivalries, Â
C'mon man. Saying it doesn't make it so. I realize you have weird takes on rivalries, what with the Rangers and Penguins, but really, some of this is pretty simple.
Some of you fellas aren't getting it. That idea is worse in owners eyes. They get paid by the number of games broadcast, not the number of 'weeks' they play. So expanding rosters and adding a bye week actually costs them more by keeping the number of 'billable' games constant but adds more mouths to feed by increasing the player pool.
They'll have no interest in that formula. This entire scheme is about increasing the gross revenue substantially. That means 18 games per team. Whether we as fans get a watered down product with backups playing in place of stars means nothing to these fucks.
18 weeks/16 games works for the owners/networks as well. The Networks still have more than enough games to broadcast each week, and the owners still get more money for the extra two weeks from the Networks. The Networks just won't have as many local games broadcast, but they will likely get more attractive national matchups to compensate.
The owners MAKE more money with 18 weeks/16 games, since they don't have to expand the rosters, and don't have to make any concessions to the players for the same number of games. And how are you going to sell teams not being able to play the star players for two weeks, but still asking for more to broadcast?
For example, how are you going to sell broadcasting the Packers if Aaron Rodgers can't play because of the 16 game limit? How do you keep the games Aaron's out from becoming a joke if the opposing team is New England with Brady (who sat out his games against the Dolphins?).
The continuing destruction of the NFL never ceases to amaze me. I've watched the NFL for five decades and can't believe what greed and a jackass named Goodell has done to this sport. A saturation of exposure, too many commercials, too many games, London bullshit, the list goes on and on. Too much of anything devalues the product regardless of what it is. These owners and Goodell haven't realized this as yet. Maybe the owners know the end of the NFL as we know it is fast approaching and they want to milk it for all it's worth before it ends.
without doing anything really stupid off the field, we as fans are left hoping the owners and Goodell make it through the offseason without doing anything this stupid
This is 100% false. They get paid by the number of games Broadcast.
What on earth are you talking about? The networks explicitly stated at the time that their new contracts with the league were going up, in part, because of an extra week of games. And beyond the actual evidence, what you're saying doesn't make any sense. Of course networks care about the number of broadcasts rather than just the number of games. A home market may have lower ratings for a out-of-town game during a bye week than for a regular game for their home team, but obviously those bye week games still draw plenty of viewers. It's nonsensical to think 17 weeks of ads is worth no more than 16 weeks.
and select the Packers primary or largest shareholder and have a game with those 32 clowns. Winning team gets to donate proceeds to a charity of their choice.
Colts/Bears? Since when are the Colts and Bears rivals? It's always been Bears/Packers.
The Raiders have a historic rivalry with the Chiefs.
Jags/Falcons? The Saints and Falcons are rivals.
Perhaps I mis worded it.
I meant natural geographic inter conference rivals.
Obviously none of these teams are really rivals since they only play 1 per 4 seasons.
I would like to see the NFL follow college where you have VA tech play UVA.
For most teams, there are very obvious great fits.
I had to do a little stretching for some:
Jags-Falcons...close drive, Georgia v FL
Titans-Saints...close drive, UT v LSU
Bengals-Panthers...little stretch...but both on the border of Appalachia, manageable drive
Chiefs-Vikings....not far
Colts-Bears....close drive
Pats-Packers...stretch...both historic and cold weather
Bills-Seahawks....battle of the North/Canada
The revenue generated by pre game shows, exposure and other ancillaries is miniscule compared to the profits generated by game broadcasts. The league isn't going to upset the apple cart over hollow weeks that don't include the extra games. They want their 18 games played per team. They've been on this idea like a dog on a bone for a long time now. From their perspective that is the key component to the next CBA agreement.
Now we have to wait and see how the players respond with their demands to make that happen.
Any schedule formula for an 18 game season would likely involve adding 2 more rotating conference opponents and leaving the rest the same. It's not rocket science.
Ummm. Yeah. Call actual rivalries, rivalries. Steelers-Ravens. Giants-Eagles.
You can't invent rivalries. Hell, the Giants and Bills are close geographically and even played against each other in a Super Bowl. No rivalry.
Carolina and the Bengals? Jacksonville is closer to Carolina than Cincy. So is DC. And still no rivalry....
For 24 of the 32 teams they are close geographic inter conference teams that would be great rivalry games, like in college football with VT-UVA, FSU-UF, UG-GT.
So I think that makes sense.
doesn't make sense. Not sure why you are acting as if does.
Geographic rivalries mean a lot in college football because you generally have alumni nearby for both schools. Family traditions.
The NFL doesn't work that way. Each team has rivalries in division. Out of division games really don't mean a whole lot and you can't just manufacture interest. Carolina has a rivarly with NO because of their division. With Atlanta. Cincy isn't even the closest team to drive to for them.
It really doesn't work that way in any professional sport. Is the Yankees-Phillies a rivalry? Rangers-Sabres?
The great thing about the NFL is you don't have to fake rivalries.
RE: RE: Why don't they just add one or two more bye weeks per team? Â
Stretch the schedule, get more weekends of football on TV, and give the players more rest.
This +1000!!
The owners can get more money by going to an 18 WEEK regular season schedule, but still going 16 GAMES per team. For a league that prattles about player safety, you would think that with more byes the players would get more recovery time, and you'd see better football.
doesn't make sense. Not sure why you are acting as if does.
Geographic rivalries mean a lot in college football because you generally have alumni nearby for both schools. Family traditions.
The NFL doesn't work that way. Each team has rivalries in division. Out of division games really don't mean a whole lot and you can't just manufacture interest. Carolina has a rivarly with NO because of their division. With Atlanta. Cincy isn't even the closest team to drive to for them.
It really doesn't work that way in any professional sport. Is the Yankees-Phillies a rivalry? Rangers-Sabres?
The great thing about the NFL is you don't have to fake rivalries.
I’d like to see Giants-Jets every year, and really Iggles-Stiller’s and Skins-Ravens. It sucks they never play.
Now its on the NFLPA to come back with a new offer if they will consider it.
A tad out there? It's seriously the singular most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
They new the NFLPA was probably not going to go for 18 game schedule, so they came to the table with this bullshit offer to see if the NFLPA would come back and say we will consider an 18 game schedule with these parameters.
It's smart, it's going to force the NFLPA to show if they are remotely interested in an 18 games schedule. More than likely they are going to just shut it down.
If they come back with a counter that means an 18 game schedule could be on the horizon.
They'll have no interest in that formula. This entire scheme is about increasing the gross revenue substantially. That means 18 games per team. Whether we as fans get a watered down product with backups playing in place of stars means nothing to these fucks.
Oh, these idiots could come up with an injured player clause where you may play the guy who sat case of injury. This is stupid on so many levels. Goes a long way in disproving forward evolution in humans.
In order to pull that off successfully, the players must be made to practice A LOT MORE to actually be ready to play opening day.
Neither the owners or players care if the product is garbage for the first four weeks so why will they care if it's shite for 6 weeks now? Answer: they won't. No matter what the finalized CBA extension or renegotiation looks like you can bet it won't increase practice time in any significant way.
Yes. The seriousness of responses in this thread is pretty amusing.
Rotates venues.
Giants-Jets
Iggles-Stillers
Ravens-Skins
Bills-Seahawks
Browns-Lions
Colts-Bears
Vikings-Chiefs
Panthers-Bengals
Jags-Falcons
Bucs-Dolphins
Saints-Titans
Texans-Cowboys
Raiders-Niners
Chargers-Rams
Broncos-Cardinals
Pats-Packers
Good idea?
Fortunately for them, the players union is one of the dumbest unions in sports, if not the world. And the owners dominate them at the bargaining table. It's embarrassing.
If I'm the players, I counter with a 14 game schedule and guaranteed contracts. Because the economics of the NFL system are absolutely insane and grossly one-sided.
It's time to right the horrific, incompetent groundwork started by that dunce Gene Upshaw.
90% are real rivalries
The Raiders have a historic rivalry with the Chiefs.
Jags/Falcons? The Saints and Falcons are rivals.
90% are real rivalries
C'mon man. Saying it doesn't make it so. I realize you have weird takes on rivalries, what with the Rangers and Penguins, but really, some of this is pretty simple.
They'll have no interest in that formula. This entire scheme is about increasing the gross revenue substantially. That means 18 games per team. Whether we as fans get a watered down product with backups playing in place of stars means nothing to these fucks.
18 weeks/16 games works for the owners/networks as well. The Networks still have more than enough games to broadcast each week, and the owners still get more money for the extra two weeks from the Networks. The Networks just won't have as many local games broadcast, but they will likely get more attractive national matchups to compensate.
The owners MAKE more money with 18 weeks/16 games, since they don't have to expand the rosters, and don't have to make any concessions to the players for the same number of games. And how are you going to sell teams not being able to play the star players for two weeks, but still asking for more to broadcast?
For example, how are you going to sell broadcasting the Packers if Aaron Rodgers can't play because of the 16 game limit? How do you keep the games Aaron's out from becoming a joke if the opposing team is New England with Brady (who sat out his games against the Dolphins?).
I doubt this goes through, the shortning if preeason seems more likely.
They're both terrible proposals.
They don’t seem to love it at all actually
Also shows they care nothing about player safety. This proposal has so many problems it can't seriously be put into effect.
Here's my proposal:
2 preseason games. Increase roster size from 53 to 60. 16 regular season games over 18 weeks. No bye week before the Superbowl.
You can't have a roster upheaval like that, well who should sit, who should play, just dumb!
Somebody should probably let both teams know that - because I doubt any fans of either team give a shit about the other team.
It is all about selling more tickets. Greedy billionaires their finest.
Take a bow owners.
What on earth are you talking about? The networks explicitly stated at the time that their new contracts with the league were going up, in part, because of an extra week of games. And beyond the actual evidence, what you're saying doesn't make any sense. Of course networks care about the number of broadcasts rather than just the number of games. A home market may have lower ratings for a out-of-town game during a bye week than for a regular game for their home team, but obviously those bye week games still draw plenty of viewers. It's nonsensical to think 17 weeks of ads is worth no more than 16 weeks.
Somebody should probably let both teams know that - because I doubt any fans of either team give a shit about the other team.
Missing the obvious. It's two large predatory cats, of course they're territorial, and hence the rivalry.
The Raiders have a historic rivalry with the Chiefs.
Jags/Falcons? The Saints and Falcons are rivals.
Perhaps I mis worded it.
I meant natural geographic inter conference rivals.
Obviously none of these teams are really rivals since they only play 1 per 4 seasons.
I would like to see the NFL follow college where you have VA tech play UVA.
For most teams, there are very obvious great fits.
I had to do a little stretching for some:
Jags-Falcons...close drive, Georgia v FL
Titans-Saints...close drive, UT v LSU
Bengals-Panthers...little stretch...but both on the border of Appalachia, manageable drive
Chiefs-Vikings....not far
Colts-Bears....close drive
Pats-Packers...stretch...both historic and cold weather
Bills-Seahawks....battle of the North/Canada
Probably a good few thousand miles away from each other. No historic past. Sure, great idea cause they border Canada.
These are some of the worst examples of rivalries I’ve ever seen.
Probably a good few thousand miles away from each other. No historic past. Sure, great idea cause they border Canada.
These are some of the worst examples of rivalries I’ve ever seen.
There’s like 4-5 that are a stretch, just like MLB, but otherwise they’re great.
Now we have to wait and see how the players respond with their demands to make that happen.
Ummm. Yeah. Call actual rivalries, rivalries. Steelers-Ravens. Giants-Eagles.
You can't invent rivalries. Hell, the Giants and Bills are close geographically and even played against each other in a Super Bowl. No rivalry.
Carolina and the Bengals? Jacksonville is closer to Carolina than Cincy. So is DC. And still no rivalry....
Quote:
????
Ummm. Yeah. Call actual rivalries, rivalries. Steelers-Ravens. Giants-Eagles.
You can't invent rivalries. Hell, the Giants and Bills are close geographically and even played against each other in a Super Bowl. No rivalry.
Carolina and the Bengals? Jacksonville is closer to Carolina than Cincy. So is DC. And still no rivalry....
For 24 of the 32 teams they are close geographic inter conference teams that would be great rivalry games, like in college football with VT-UVA, FSU-UF, UG-GT.
So I think that makes sense.
Geographic rivalries mean a lot in college football because you generally have alumni nearby for both schools. Family traditions.
The NFL doesn't work that way. Each team has rivalries in division. Out of division games really don't mean a whole lot and you can't just manufacture interest. Carolina has a rivarly with NO because of their division. With Atlanta. Cincy isn't even the closest team to drive to for them.
It really doesn't work that way in any professional sport. Is the Yankees-Phillies a rivalry? Rangers-Sabres?
The great thing about the NFL is you don't have to fake rivalries.
Quote:
Stretch the schedule, get more weekends of football on TV, and give the players more rest.
This +1000!!
The owners can get more money by going to an 18 WEEK regular season schedule, but still going 16 GAMES per team. For a league that prattles about player safety, you would think that with more byes the players would get more recovery time, and you'd see better football.
Nah, can't let that happen, can we...
This is a good idea.
Geographic rivalries mean a lot in college football because you generally have alumni nearby for both schools. Family traditions.
The NFL doesn't work that way. Each team has rivalries in division. Out of division games really don't mean a whole lot and you can't just manufacture interest. Carolina has a rivarly with NO because of their division. With Atlanta. Cincy isn't even the closest team to drive to for them.
It really doesn't work that way in any professional sport. Is the Yankees-Phillies a rivalry? Rangers-Sabres?
The great thing about the NFL is you don't have to fake rivalries.
I’d like to see Giants-Jets every year, and really Iggles-Stiller’s and Skins-Ravens. It sucks they never play.
Thomas was Greenpoint and area junc and I'm sure some others.
Rover was Trent - the guy who threatened Eric and his family years back. He might also have been hudson and Golden Tee.
Thomas was Greenpoint and area junc and I'm sure some others.
Rover was Trent - the guy who threatened Eric and his family years back. He might also have been hudson and Golden Tee.
Oh is that right? I'm mixing my dupes up, thank you.
Now its on the NFLPA to come back with a new offer if they will consider it.
Now its on the NFLPA to come back with a new offer if they will consider it.
A tad out there? It's seriously the singular most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
Quote:
so of course its going to sound a tad out there.
Now its on the NFLPA to come back with a new offer if they will consider it.
A tad out there? It's seriously the singular most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
They new the NFLPA was probably not going to go for 18 game schedule, so they came to the table with this bullshit offer to see if the NFLPA would come back and say we will consider an 18 game schedule with these parameters.
It's smart, it's going to force the NFLPA to show if they are remotely interested in an 18 games schedule. More than likely they are going to just shut it down.
If they come back with a counter that means an 18 game schedule could be on the horizon.