The concept has a ripple effect, but it’s probably coming. Jack Bechta
Last week, I asked one of my clients how he felt about playing an 18-game regular season. The answer he gave me was more than a simple yes or no. My client, who’s been with me for seven years, gave me a laundry list of things he would want before agreeing. It got me thinking about the ripple effect and wholesale changes that would come with playing 18 games.
Before forming my own opinion, I asked more players, coaches, GMs and even the commissioner for their thoughts. The more I delved into the subject, the more questions I found that needed answering. Moving to a longer season would have a serious impact on the current infrastructure, including offseason workouts, OTAs (organized team activities), mini-camps, player evaluations(particularly rookies), player compensation, scheduling, practice schedules, roster sizes, practice squad size, injured reserved terms and even training methods.
The assumption is that we would lose two preseason games and get the regular season started two weeks earlier. Of course, as an agent, my concern is for the players, but I wanted to hear from everyone who would be affected by the change. Here’s what I learned:
PLAYERS
I spoke to 10 veteran players and one rookie. My veteran clients had similar responses, including this one: ”As long as we’re paid for the games, I’m OK with it.” Along with additional compensation, players want to be assured that there will be less wear and tear on their bodies during camp. By the 12th game of the regular season, everyone is beat up and nursing some type of lingering injury. So the prospect of adding two games and taxing the NFL body that much definitely have some risk. However, if camp is two weeks shorter, the consensus was that players will welcome the change.
APTwo more games would ultimately lead to more injuries.
On the specifics of compensation, it was unanimous that players would look to be additionally compensated for the games at a proration of their contracts. For example, if a player is making a base salary of $1.6 million ($100,000 per game) for a 16-game season, with one off week, he would expect to make $1.8 million for an 18-game season with one off week. One player felt he should be compensated 110-120 percent of his weekly game check for the two additional games. Four players brought up the idea of having an additional off week.
If the players are compensated and given a shorter, less physical camp, and their bodies are managed with more consideration to the longer season, I believe they will sign off on the proposal.
General Managers
The first AFC West general manager I called had a strong opinion. He said, “Jack, I hate the f-----g idea! We would have to go back to the drawing board and redesign everything we do. Player evaluations will be more challenging, we’ll have more injuries, and the quality of the product will suffer in the first few weeks of the season.” He also said, “We’re holding our breath as it is that we can get out of a camp with healthy players and reach the playoffs with a healthy team.” There’s a very fine balance in getting players repped, calloused and rested for the start of the season. Losing two preseason games would put a strain on players’ bodies and their ability to learn. He added that a team is lucky when it can get to the postseason healthy. The two extra games could have a huge impact on postseason play.
Of the four GMs I spoke to, three hated the idea and brought up many similar concerns. The biggest change for GMs would be the way they evaluate younger players in the preseason. They would have to depend on their coaches to get their teams ready while simultaneously playing rookies more in the preseason. One GM said he would consider more weekly scrimmages with other teams.
More specifics from GMs: Expand game-day rosters and practice squads. Shorten the time players can go on the IR list with an opportunity to get them back during the season. Currently, when a player is placed on IR, he is prohibited from playing the rest of that season. One GM suggested it should be about nine weeks long. Another GM wanted more mini-camps to increase his ability to evaluate and prepare players.
One AFC Central GM was more subjective. He said the change would simply give more value to the fans, and we should embrace the change if it happens and make the necessary adjustments.
Head Coaches
APHow would coaches handle training camp with an expanded regular season?
Of the three head coaches I spoke to, two were adamantly against the idea and one said it didn’t make much difference. However, all agreed that a change to an 18-game season would affect them the most. They would have to start over how they prepare for a season, how they work with their young players and how they get their teams ready with a shorter preseason.
One AFC West coach welcomed the idea and said it would be a good reason to cut back on a lot of unnecessary things they do. He thinks OTAs should be trimmed from 14 to 11 days. He doesn’t play vets much anyway and would cut back on their preseason game reps and give the No. 2s and 3s more playing time. He, like the other coaches, also wanted expanded rosters (53 on game days, 58 total), bigger practice squads (about 10) and more flexible IR terms. The problem with this, I’ve heard, is that owners don’t want bigger rosters.
The Commish
APNFL commissioner Roger Goodell
I decided to get Roger Goodell’s quick take on an 18-game season and see if he really has thought through all the components that would need changing or adjusting. I wanted to see if this was a passing subject or an inevitable change. He told me that he’s been evaluating and exploring the idea for about a year and realizes he and the NFL would need sufficient time to prepare for modifications to the current system. They’ve been talking with coaches and GMs about this for a while now, and he’s also interested in the players’ perspective. He’s keeping an open mind and seems to be in the exploratory phase of this matter. However, I don’t know if he and new union chief DeMaurice Smith have tabled the subject for serious discussion.
Goodell also made it clear to me that the preseason game “stinks” as a product for fans and partners of the NFL. He’s interested in giving fans more value for their money. My sense is that he wants to see an 18-game season, eliminate two preseason games and also use the change to improve certain components of the system.
I’ve known Roger for many years, and an observation I can share is that he consistently looks at the game and all its elements through the eyes of the fans. He’s a fan’s commissioner.
MY TWO CENTS
I’m all for an 18=game season as long as:
Players are fairly compensated.
Fans get a clean exchange for their current two preseason games.
Players’ bodies are better managed on the front end of camp and during the season.
There are expanded rosters and practice squads.
There are more flexible injured reserve rules.
The start of voluntary offseason training is pushed back until April 15 or later.
OTAs are cut back.
Rookies are allowed to report to camp one week earlier than vets.
As an agent, I’m in tune with the strain that playing in the NFL puts on my clients’ bodies. These guys are hurting pretty bad down the stretch, and two more games can push their bodies beyond their limits. Unless, of course, more restrictions can be put in place on how their bodies are managed in the offseason and during camp. Most NFL coaches do a good job during the season managing players’ health. However, some players never fully recover from a tough camp.
I worry about LaDainian Tomlinson and other running backs getting 30 to 50 more pounding carries, QBs taking 10 extra hits over the last two games and linebackers having 20 more violent collisions. Two more games will have an impact on player health if the management of the preseason isn’t handled with extra care.
I also worry about the late rounders and undrafted free agents who may not get the reps they need in the preseason to get fairly evaluated or even scouted by other clubs.
I have a concern that clubs with new GMs and new head coaches will be at a big disadvantage putting in new systems and evaluating new faces. As a result, bad teams may stay bad even longer without proper preparation time in the preseason. This could be a negative for those teams’ fans and first-year head coaches – and a plus for teams like the Steelers and Patriots that have successful systems in place.
One GM I spoke to who absolutely hated the idea said, “The 18-game season is inevitable. We will all toe the company line and make the necessary changes to adjust.” And I agree. It’s coming.
I want to hear from fans. What are your thoughts on an 18-game season?
Jack,
I would love to see an 18 game season with two bye weeks for each team. I agree with all of your additions excluding the cutting back of OTAs, the rookies coming in early to TC and I think the IR rules shouldn;t be changed, maybe the PUP but not IR.
OTAs are voluntary and I think really help not only the rookies but players trying to make position changes, vets fighting for roster spots, and new coaches who are assessing talent and installing their playbook. Also moving them past April 15th is a bad idea. They are in perfect position as it is, I see no founded reason to move them.
Now, if the rookies are asked to come in early several things happen. They gain an edge on vets they are trying to beat out, because of this this free week would become voluntary for vets. This results in pressure for everyone who is not a solid starter to be there to fight for their roster spot. If you have a rookie week it will be open to vets and they will be pressured to be there so it is not much different than just having a longer TC for all but the elite players.
Also, as far as the IR rule are concerned I think they can make the necessary changes with modifications to the PUP list. With larger rosters IR becomes less of a concern and if teams gain to much room to stash players then players who get lightly injured and would normally be cut, and therefore have a chance to make other teams, would instead be stashed away and forced onto the bench when it is not necessary. A good example is a rookie who gets slightly injured on a team with a lot of depth. A team will want to hold on to its draft pick but what if they are saying the injury is more severe that it is. The rookie would then be forced to ride pine until, healthy, until someone else goes down. The IR is a hard thing to put players on and it needs to stay that way to protect the players. With an extended season I would like to see a 4 week PUP list and a 8 week PUP list. I think this should allow enough player management for the coaches to survive.
I think that an additional bye week for each team would be the biggest addition and good for all parties involved. Not only do the players get another week off late in the stretch but the NFL gets another week added to the broadcasting contracts which means more money for the owners even if some goes to the players. This helps make up for the larger rosters and should work well for all parties involved, fans included. 20 week regular season, 27 weeks of football, I think I would be in heaven.
I'm not quite sure what I would be getting out of an 18-game season that I don't already get out of a 16-game season, apart from two more chances to blow a playoff spot, tear Westbrook's ACL, and line owners pockets with some more revenue.
As you said, it isn't as simple as converting two preseason games into regular season games - there's a lot in sync right now that would need an enormous facelift in order to keep the game itself on track.
I'm not wholly against the idea, but it really should be up to the players and yes they should be fairly compensated. It seems there's always an extracurricular scapegoat for injuries: World Baseball Classic (Dice-K), preseason games (Portis), Olympics (Manu). These typically happen because the body is already so taxed from everything it has already endured - substituting two extra full contact regular season games in addition to the revamped OTA schedule, rookie camps, etc etc is only going to increase injuries and roster spots.
Who knows? By the time February rolls around, the NFC Champs could be starting Keanu Reeves under center with a sumo wrestler for a left tackle, but not because of a strike this time.
Well, as a greedy NFL fan I would never complain about more football, but it certainly changes the dynamics of everything else as you alluded to.
Also, from the perspective of a numbers guy, specifically as one who enjoys statistical debates, changing the length of a season throws a wrench into those debates. Now there's a third tier in debating career statistics, 14 vs. 16 vs. 18 game seasons, and the whole nine yards. Sixteen games feels right to me, but I don't think what I think matters. It's coming whether we like it or not.
Even with all these conditions, the quality of play will suffer early in the season. As a fan I don't want the game to be watered down with less talent and more depth. The NFL game is so difficult that teams are already alternating RB's and D-lineman.
That being said, the current system does not favor the fan paying for preseason games. The NFL must continue to open up revenue streams for teams (like ads on practice jerseys) and lower prices on preseason games.
It's natural for agents and players first reaction to be "As long as we get more money", without considering the long-term repercussions. Players careers will be shortened and teams will be more hesitant to give long contracts. I just don't see how less training time will prevent injuries and wear-and-tear.
Good read Jack, Thanks.
I thought everyone you talked to, made excellent points.
The one issue I think the NFLPA should stand absolutely firm on, (other than more pay, that should go without saying) is the expanded rosters. I personally think their too small now, with a 16 game season. But I too, like you, know the owners will balk at any expansion talk, especially if it's a significant number. Which it would need to be, if it's going to alleviate some of the wear and tear on players bodies.
Again good stuff Jack!
The one thing I still don't see anyone commenting on is the playoffs. Once we extend the schedule to 18 games it is a foregone conclusion that the owners are going to want to expand the playoffs to allow more teams in.
Right now whenever a team wins 11 games and doesn't get in there's always an outcry.
Just imagine what's going to happen if they move to an 18 game schedule. The propensity for 11 and 12 win seasons are going to increase.
Before you know it the NFL playoffs will be similar to MLB's and the NBA's.
I think I like the idea of a 17th game on a neutral site more than I like the idea of two 18 game seasons. I feel that this would allow more fans to have access to the NFL in games that matter and would eliminate teams giving up home games in order to play a game in London or Tokyo.
I also believe that players should benefit more than just a proportional per game increase. Not only are they playing two extra games, but they are giving up time off. Also, I'd like to see a bye week between the pre-season and the regular season in order to give them a chance to recover from the beating that they've taken.
Dan - Trying to compare statistics from the three different eras would be no more difficult than comparing them now. This isn't baseball, where it is the same game played from era to era. Heck, its even difficult to compare players that play in the same era under different schemes. Did Kurt Warner throw all of those TDs in St Louis because he was such a good QB or did he throw them because he was part of the Greatest Show on Turf? It's hard to say, because after a year or two of seeing that offense, defenses learned to adapt.
The other thing that irks me about this whole debate is that one of the reasons the NFL didn't want to change the OT rules is because the increased chance of injury and yet here they are seriously considering extending the season two more games!
I think the players will love the idea if there are two more paychecks, because there will be some serious concerns from the guys over how two more games a year can shorten their overall careers...
Even with all these conditions, the quality of play will suffer early in the season. As a fan I don't want the game to be watered down with less talent and more depth. The NFL game is so difficult that teams are already alternating RB's and D-lineman.
That being said, the current system does not favor the fan paying for preseason games. The NFL must continue to open up revenue streams for teams (like ads on practice jerseys) and lower prices on preseason games.
It's natural for agents and players first reaction to be "As long as we get more money", without considering the long-term repercussions. Players careers will be shortened and teams will be more hesitant to give long contracts. I just don't see how less training time will prevent injuries and wear-and-tear.
How will an expanded season relate to what other teams are played? Perhaps a restructuring of who plays who should go along with a jump to 18 games. One option is to have each team play all the other teams in its conference plus those in its own division twice, and not playing teams from the other conference. This imposes a definite uniformity on each conference while keeping divisional rivalries intact, and the Super Bowl can now be said to be a true contest between conference champions.
Jayme - I merely meant that it would add another variable into judging a player's career in relation to his peers and generations previous. There's already been enough change in the game in the Super Bowl era to render it nearly impossible, and adding two more games just creates even more necessity to try to used mathematics and manipulation to even the playing field for comparisons.
I think the single greatest change to the game came post-2003 after the Manning vs. New England debacle and the resulting tightening of the rules that have inflated the passing game since then. When it comes to comparing statistically great passing seasons, give me Marino's 1984 season considering the state of the league at that time over Manning's or Brady's record breaking seasons.
Pros- the dual thousand yard backfield will become a common occurrence. In fact, a necessity. So, the table for that measure of incentive should be reached more often, and the number one spot will see greater rewards for exceeding 1,200 plus yards, etc.
The theme I think we all keep hitting on is the injury concern, and how it will extrapolate over a career. Going hand in hand with that is also the rehab concern, no?
Brady goes down in Week 1 with the worst injury (arguably, right?) a guy can get, ACL, which instantly starts the clock on the typically mandatory 1 year sit out time. As soon as he's carted off, he's got 52 weeks before his next game, and what, 40 weeks before he's semi-healthy and practicing again? How does the extra two games affect that timetable? Faster rehabilitation = sloppier rehabilitation?
I know these guys have careers to think about, but they also have lives after football to think about too. l
I thought Dan made a great point too, about having to asterisk the different eras, or how a lot of purists will want to regarding the 14-16-18 game seasons. He's right: 16 games feels just fine.
The consideration of an 18 game schedule sucks and is only based in increasing revenues and expansion into the foreign market...it has NOTHING to do with the fans, or the players. The current system is PERFECT...except for the need to better preserve the players' current and future health. If Goodell wants Euro games, simply indemnify those clubs forced to play for their lost home games. With such a revenue-driven agenda, I fear Goodell will transform the NFL into the NBA, ie., a league that values money over the quality of the sport as a whole. How does that help the fans?
I agree with Jack that it has to be an even exchange of preseason games for fans. As a season ticket holder at Lambeau, I'm not thrilled about additional games in January unless it's a playoff game. Just sayin'. However, that plays out to a logistic nightmare at Lambeau Field as well as currently the two preseason games are split between green and gold package holders, where the green package has 6 regular games + 1 preseason, gold package has 2 regular games + 1 preseason. Which package gets the dreaded preseason game and which package gets the additional regular home game?
I like the idea of 18 games, however I understand your player perspective but you have no consideration how this affects the teams finances.
This would be negative to the teams if they had to increase players salaries for teams that sell out pre season games at full price (ie Packers). They would not gain any revenue and potentionally lose revenue at the same time increasing player costs. During preseason games in Green Bay, (and probly many other cities), fans who attend pre season games tend to be fans who dont have season tickets, and they tend to spend more money on jerseys etc than fans who have season tickets. By limiting pre season games to possibly only 1 home game, you would be cutting your fans who only have access to pre season tickets. As a season ticket holder myself, it would help me, but it would hurt the potential revenue for the team and limit access to games to those fans who dont have season tickets.
Teams of course who dont sell out preseason games at full price would see an increase in revenue.
I like the idea of the 18 game season, however I think it would hurt the finances for many teams if they have to increase salaries. Im sure this will be addressed in the new CBA.
Great Story
I think the most interesting take on this is from the AFC GM. It's true that it will have a huge impact on strategy on how you evaluate players. It's hard enough to keep McNabb and Westbrook healthy for a 16 game season...I can't imagine what the extra 2 games would lead to.
I think it is coming, it's a money thing. More games mean more NFL network commercials and bigger TV contracts.
I agree with all of your stipulations, the extra bye week I think is needed, as well as expanding rosters.
The problem will become rookies. Less wrok in the offseason is what Players say they would need, GM's and Coaches need more to evaluate players without those 2 games. If Goodel wants to solve the preseason problem make it illegal for teams to force them onto season ticket packages and let the market decide their worth. If people still pay full value to go, it's their own fault.
I hate the 18 game season idea. I don't think any real football fans want to see more injuries and less preparation, just to get two more weeks of football games. But we will see it, it will be bad for the game, but good for the short term money. And that's what all leagues go for.
Fans stop complaining about the pre-season the moment the regular season begins. When is the NFL going to realize that their business is NOT broken. A 16-game schedule played out over 17 weeks fits nicely into the fall season. Adding two more games moves the start of the regular season up into August where attendance will be affected by fan's family vacations. Or it will extend the season well into January where really cold weather affects games northern cities. Then of course the Super Bowl won't be played until after Valentine's Day. This is way too long of a season in my estimation.
The NFL is forgetting a maxim used in show business for years - "always leave them wanting more." There is no need to satiate every whim of a fan or an owner. The games are a weekly event for every fan. The playoffs captivate the nation and the Super Bowl gets the attention of the world. The friggin draft is a national event for gawds sake! What about having the most popular sport in America and the best run league in the world don't you like NFL?
Don't mess with the product. It's perfect just the way it is.
As someone who has been to the fourth preseason game of the year before, it's not as interesting, so I wouldn't mind seeing the preseason shortened to two games. You would have to had team scrimmages to training camp, which some teams already do. An 18-game schedule would make it a necessity.
Active Rosters need to be expanded. What's the point of a 53-man roster when all of them can't play in a game. Make everyone on the 53-game roster eligible to play, expand the practice squad to 12 players to give teams more room for their rookies they aren't able to properly evaluate during the shortened preseason.
Schedule changes: This is actually a simple change. Add a second bye after the 1st half of the season is over. Keep the current format with rotating between divisions in both conferences. The only change would be the "divisional place" games. As it is, the 1st place team from one year plays the 1st place teams in the divisions of their conference they do not already play. This gives only 2 opponents each year that is determined by finish. If you make all 1st and 2nd place teams play each other and all 3rd and 4th teams play each other (or some other combination, but I prefer this one), you now get 4 teams determined by the results and that's where your 17th and 18th games come from.
Injury Changes: Time to mirror MLB a little. Add x-weeks IR to fullseason IR. Keep the PUP the same as it is because, if I'm not mistaken, it's in place for injuries that existed before the regular season started. Once the season starts, teams should be able to place an injured player on IR without losing the player for the year. Say you've got a 4-week IR in addition to fullseason. During Week 4 a player injures a hamstring enough that means he'll miss a couple of games. You can put him on the 4-week IR, meaning he will not be able to play in the teams games the next four weeks minimum. To replace him on the Active Roster, you can move a player up from the practice squad. If and when the injured player returns, the player who replaced him can be returned to the practice squad, or another move depending on the situation. Teams can also transfer their players to fullseason IR if the injury is deemed to be more severe than originally thought. This would be like IR is currently, meaning the player no longer counts towards the Roster in any way.
As for pay, existing contracts would need to be prorated as mentioned in the article. Any contract signed after the installation of the 18-game season would be for 18-games.
We love the NFL because every game in the 16 game schedule means so much in the standings. I feel adding 2 more games will eliminate some of the suspense we enjoy so much. I really don't see any good reason for the 2 additional games. It appears to me like a $$ grab by the owners. How does that improve the league? More games = more injuries. The system that is currently in place has been a huge success for many of years. Please don't change it. It's PERFECT.
I'm all about what's best for the team. I would rather continue to see 16 games then watch my team fall apart in the playoffs. I just feel right now 4 games is working, why mess with it? The first game is basically easing into it, the second and third games are "live" goes and the fourth game is an opportunity for the last few guys to try to make the team; not to mention anyone who is being cut to have some game film available for other teams. We're talking about player's careers here and not just the business.
I hate the idea.
I love football, but right now the league is in a perfect state. 32 teams is perfect. Divisions of four are perfect. 16 games are clean. The scheduling makes sense.
Adding games makes each less valuable, and increasing roster sizes and dealing with the inevitable increase in injuries will only dilute the product more.
My biggest concern is with the bookends of the season.
First, even with 4 preseason games, the first few weeks of the regular season are somewhat sloppy anyway. Players are still getting the feel for the game, QBs are trying to find a rhythm with their WRs, and offensive lines are still gelling. Shorten that preparation time and expect teams to still be working out the kinks into week 6 instead of week 3 or 4.
Second, the season is already a marathon. I had to watch my Eagles try and compete in the playoffs with banged up OTs and with an ineffective Westbrook opperating at 30%. How much more of a crap shoot will the playoffs be when the participants hardly resemble themselves after an 18 game season?
No, there shouldn't be an 18 game season. Here are a couple reasons.
1. There will be more injuries (Obviously).
2. Football season would probably be extended into March, if not the middle of it. Thats about 7 months of football (including pre-season and playoffs). Thats too long for a physical sport like this. Players need rest. (That is if they don't cut anything). Players will be mentally and physically exhausted, preparing and playing each week. This will kill their performance, making the game less fun to watch.
3. If they do in fact cut OTAs, Minicamps, and Training camp that will kill the team chemistry. Its important to have team chemistry. As we know football is an intense and complex sport. Teams need to prepare. The offseason is for that reason. Organizations every year fail miserably as it is- if there is cutting to the offseason- there will be more mistakes in the game than there already are.
As a huge football fan (and bills fan) I do not like this idea. I do love watching football every Sunday and Monday Night. But I prefer quality over quantity.
As a big NFL fan, I am torn on this.
1-early season games would be sickening to watch with many false starts, holding and penalties on ST.
2-The end of the season could also really stink if injuries start piling up on starters and reserves. Thus leaving us with a real possibility we could watch Paul Smith under center for the Jags,
3-The fan will ultimately be paying more for the game checks, player compensation and expanded rosters. Advertisers push their costs on, not eat them.
4-Young player development will be hurt. Especially the undrafted RFA, which some turn out to be gems.
5-The compensations will end up having more and more hold outs, contract disputes and high priced rookies not riding the pine long enough, and get thrown to the wolves way too soon,
The real issue here is money. Players want more money, the owners want more money and the fans are sick of having to pay for crappy preseason games. So, cut players salaries. Cut 2 preseason games. Cut ticket prices. At least 1 of the 3 will be very happy.
I think depth becomes a priority in an 18 game season. I would be inclined to give my depth a series or two during the course of a game and possibly even give players a game off. I don't think it is reasonable to expect a player to play an 18 game season in the same manner that we have them play the 16 game season, especially playoff contenders.
Anytime there is a rule change, it becomes a reality that the teams that can adjust the best/quickest can capitalize on it. I can just see the Lions running their players out on every snap until they can hardly move while the Patriots are rotating their players in and out of the lineup to keep them fresh, healthy and give backups some PT to be the next man in in the case of injury.
I'd love to watch 2 more football games, but I'd love to watch football at its best too, with all the star players on the field. The playoffs are the climax of the football season and I can't figure out in wich conditions the players would get there. A wild card team reching the superbowl would play 22 games. Its running back would carry the football almost 500 times or its qb throw the football almost 700 times. I think it's a no brainer since not everytime quantity means quality.
As a fan, I don't feel like 2 more games would make the regular season any more exciting. One of the special things about football is the way the short season and once a week games make every individual game so much more significant. Adding length just waters down the product.
Its an idea that just benefits the owners and the TV stations at the expense of the fans, players and coaches.
I would also love to see an expanded 18 game regular season and agree with all the concessions that have been suggested.
The current pre-season is a joke and the fact that the NFL has been charging the same for pre-season as regular season and forcing you to buy them in season ticket packages is a crime. Full price for lesser product. Where else in America??
I'm against the idea of a 18 games regular season. Wtih the cons that has been mentioned above, and as well the thought of having teams in the end of season that are already qualified for the playoffs, playing with their back-up players the last couple of games. It already happens frequently in a 16 game season and it's probably gonna be even more "meaningless" games in the end of the regular season. How fun is that?
Just drop preseason ticket prices with 30% and take the preseason for what it is. Just simple practice games. You get to see your team, feel the crowd atmosphere and if you are lucky some of the first team players will play a couple of drives.
My quick 2 cents is Goodell is tinkering with too much of a good thing at times. Promoting OUR game overseas? SB overseas???? ...NO WAY. Now this. (BTW great job with.... 1) Policing the players 2) The Draft but I wish he kept RD 3 with the 1st day.)
Dunno if this is possible because of the revenue lost for the owners, media, & sponsors, etc. but I'd like to see only 2 pre-season games then leave everything AS IS.
A compromise for both sides would be to eliminate 1 pre-season game. Better for the fans & players & the revenue lost for 1 game is something I'm sure those effected could get over & live with. I always want more football but a 16-game season seems just right & won't cause any of the above problems that's been talked about. My vote is to just LEAVE THAT THE WAY IT IS.
Guys, great feedback on this subject. I will be sure that both The NFLPA and the Commissioner hear your thoughts and opinions. after all, it's your voice that is the most important.
Talking to Packers President Mark Murphy about this a month or so ago for a feature for my Web site, PackerReport.com, he envisioned all 32 teams having a bye for Labor Day weekend, an 18-game season with another bye and the Super Bowl being played on Presidents Day Weekend. To me, it sounds like it's inevitable because it's a bargaining chip to reach agreement on a new CBA.
Just not in favor of it. Regular season is long enough. I am in favor of cutting back to 2 or 3 preseason games.
Wathcing two more Detriot games is punishment, not just to the fans but the players.
Player's wanting proration irks me. They are paid an annual salary not a per game check. They want an extra pay check for each extra played game, fine then no pay check when they sit. However, I agree the extra physical wear and tear is worth something. As it's two extra weeks of games out of 52 week year, then 2/52d's increase in salary.
A) preseason is not a product, its a camp where players, coaches get their act together to play a complex game B) if your'e cool with no quality control, play 24 games. = more money.
Expand the squad by having two more players, tag them ad 'floaters' or 'flex' where they get paid salaried levels for games on a weekly basis and for said week are considered roster protected from other signings.
Two more positions helps coaches, more money so the NFLPA can agree, and there's an ability to motivate the bottom tier of the roster by having players secure in their status or potentially falling off floater designation. The competitive aspect improves motivation and challenges GM to act creatively in how they use this awards system between ten players over 16(18) weeks.
It might be a way to help agents who helped you, float other clients for their good work on securing one for you, some teams would float the cheapest pay scale kept, others would float a need position, others would retain extra salaried special teams depth, etc. The inherent flexibility would allow each team to tailor its two roster flexes to their greatest needs.
Being a football fan, of course the opportunity to get two more games per season is exciting. However, I don't feel this is a good idea for the players sake. The rigors of an NFL season take a tremendous toll on the players and adding two more games can have devestating long term effects. I don't want to see players not being able to enjoy the fruits of their labors after they retire because they are unable to move. Even if the players are compensated I don't believe its worth it. I bet there are a number of players who have health problems resulting from their playing days who aren't thinking, "I wish I had the opportunity to play more games and make a couple more million dollars."
| powered by TheSeats.com |
Super Bowl means catering to clients,...
With no salary floor and fewer...
Eliminate the game and give players...
Taking care of business and keeping...
An ‘umbrella’ can provide coverage...
Jun 23, 2009
01:34 PM
I'd add these two to the list:
- TWO bye weeks each season.
- Players are mandated to wear concussion-resistant helmets.