Why don't they first start by expanding the rosters, then worry about increasing the length of the season. Then finally figure out a way to enforce that idiotic 16 games max per player idea.
Seriously, can you imagine the season is increased to 18 games, you have a franchise QB and come week 17, you are fighting for a playoff spot and said QB can't play the final two games because he started the previous 16?
So the individual players get bye weeks now? It also screws the fans. Say you get one NYG game a year and thats the game that a healthy saquon has to sit out. Or someone like mahomes if you're a chiefs fan.
But someone in the comments section of the article brought up a good point.
Say a team is blowing or getting blown out, the decide to sit start players in the second half. Would those two quarters count towards the overall concept? Meaning they would have .5 games credit of "sitting out"?
But someone in the comments section of the article brought up a good point.
Say a team is blowing or getting blown out, the decide to sit start players in the second half. Would those two quarters count towards the overall concept? Meaning they would have .5 games credit of "sitting out"?
C'mon, that's silly (even within the context of a silly proposal). Of course not.
Why don't they just add one or two more bye weeks per team? Â
But someone in the comments section of the article brought up a good point.
Say a team is blowing or getting blown out, the decide to sit start players in the second half. Would those two quarters count towards the overall concept? Meaning they would have .5 games credit of "sitting out"?
C'mon, that's silly (even within the context of a silly proposal). Of course not.
Right, that is my point, you would open a whole can of worms with crazy ideas of trying to make this work.
But if you thought Davis Webb was worth discussing now, Â
Stretch the schedule, get more weekends of football on TV, and give the players more rest.
I think they end up with 18 games regular season and 2 byes. It'll be interesting to see how much the rosters expand by and if the revenue split also increases in exchange.
the immediate thought is those fighting for the playoffs, as previously mentioned. But how many players don't get at least one play on the field in a game? So now you hire an entire AAF/XFL team because you have to account for new players and their backups.
NONONONONONONONO and NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! You are in a playoff race, and your QB has not sat yet because you couldn't afford to sit him, now you have sit him for the last 2 games. SCREW THAT SHIT!!!
Or at least the 2 of the first 4 games because if not, you run the risk of missing a starter in a race to the playoffs.
So you've essentially made the first 2 weeks of the season fucking meaningless from a fan perspective. That's brilliant! Enjoy the ratings those first two weeks.
If Eli plays well, the E-hive, will get to see him play all games. And then Jones plays the last 2 games and we move onto the next phase of Giants football. LOL
RE: So basically, no one starts the first 2 games of the season. Â
Or at least the 2 of the first 4 games because if not, you run the risk of missing a starter in a race to the playoffs.
So you've essentially made the first 2 weeks of the season fucking meaningless from a fan perspective. That's brilliant! Enjoy the ratings those first two weeks.
But unless they expand the rosters by 50+%, they will have to start some key guys in those games just to field a team...
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.
Owners get the increased revenue from two in season televised games per team, the players get a bigger piece of the pie overall and even the loyal season ticket buyers benefit by cutting full price pre season ticket prices from 4 games to 2.
It's a win-Win-Win. The League, players and fans all benefit.
Of course this will likely never happen as it's far too simple and fair a solution for the tripod that supports the NFL mega bucks machine.
The other options to make this work are RETARDED(I know that term is out of vogue or considered in bad taste but in this case it serves a point). Two weeks where your franchise QB doesn't play? The team continuity required to function optimally for example the offensive line protecting your QB. Imagine the outrage if Aaaron Rodgers was lost for the season when his backup replacement LG whiffs on a block and his knee gets churned like butter. RIDICULOUS. Then factor in all the machinations and negotiations that would ensue over roster size and practice time? So many difficult moving parts in that deal it makes a super computer dizzy.
the union isn't going to agree to an 18 game schedule without more dough so this is the plan the geniuses came up with to keep the players to 16 games but have two more games count where someone might show up because they are "regular season" games and they squeeze more money out of national tv packages or more games to broadcast on NFL Network that are not now part of national tv packages.
Nothing in this plan that an owner won't love. Now you know why Goodell has a job: he can go out and present the most self-serving plan for owners and do it with a straight face.
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.
Who wouldn’t have loved to see two games with another QB last season? And it makes roster management more interesting. Two more games a year is fine with me. Idk, not the worst idea ever.
Tsk tsk tsk, that would cost more money in salaries to pay additional players- musn't have that. The plan must provide owners with additional revenue without any additional costs.
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.
Did McAdoo propose this?
Seriously, can you imagine the season is increased to 18 games, you have a franchise QB and come week 17, you are fighting for a playoff spot and said QB can't play the final two games because he started the previous 16?
This is football, you have to play two games a year with a backup QB? Or without your top WR? Or OL?
Sounds like an onion article.
Say a team is blowing or getting blown out, the decide to sit start players in the second half. Would those two quarters count towards the overall concept? Meaning they would have .5 games credit of "sitting out"?
Say a team is blowing or getting blown out, the decide to sit start players in the second half. Would those two quarters count towards the overall concept? Meaning they would have .5 games credit of "sitting out"?
C'mon, that's silly (even within the context of a silly proposal). Of course not.
Without adding anymore games that is.
Quote:
But someone in the comments section of the article brought up a good point.
Say a team is blowing or getting blown out, the decide to sit start players in the second half. Would those two quarters count towards the overall concept? Meaning they would have .5 games credit of "sitting out"?
C'mon, that's silly (even within the context of a silly proposal). Of course not.
Right, that is my point, you would open a whole can of worms with crazy ideas of trying to make this work.
I think they end up with 18 games regular season and 2 byes. It'll be interesting to see how much the rosters expand by and if the revenue split also increases in exchange.
(Yes, I realize they would probably be an exception to the rule.)
So you've essentially made the first 2 weeks of the season fucking meaningless from a fan perspective. That's brilliant! Enjoy the ratings those first two weeks.
So you've essentially made the first 2 weeks of the season fucking meaningless from a fan perspective. That's brilliant! Enjoy the ratings those first two weeks.
But unless they expand the rosters by 50+%, they will have to start some key guys in those games just to field a team...
Owners get the increased revenue from two in season televised games per team, the players get a bigger piece of the pie overall and even the loyal season ticket buyers benefit by cutting full price pre season ticket prices from 4 games to 2.
It's a win-Win-Win. The League, players and fans all benefit.
Of course this will likely never happen as it's far too simple and fair a solution for the tripod that supports the NFL mega bucks machine.
The other options to make this work are RETARDED(I know that term is out of vogue or considered in bad taste but in this case it serves a point). Two weeks where your franchise QB doesn't play? The team continuity required to function optimally for example the offensive line protecting your QB. Imagine the outrage if Aaaron Rodgers was lost for the season when his backup replacement LG whiffs on a block and his knee gets churned like butter. RIDICULOUS. Then factor in all the machinations and negotiations that would ensue over roster size and practice time? So many difficult moving parts in that deal it makes a super computer dizzy.
Not good. If anything 2-3 byes and 18 games (3 byes seems a lot, but if player safety / recovery is the issue, err on their side IMO)
If not 16 games and 2 fewer preseasons
Ha! I didn't think he was that creative.
Nothing in this plan that an owner won't love. Now you know why Goodell has a job: he can go out and present the most self-serving plan for owners and do it with a straight face.
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...
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?