ColoradoBills Posted July 13, 2019 Posted July 13, 2019 8 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said: Owners are greedy. Players are greedy. They'll figure out a way to make it work. Fans are an afterthought. I disagree. It fundamentally changes the way sports work. Players in Hockey, Baseball and Basketball (all which have over 80 games a season) may sit out a few BUT no professional sport forces any of these players to sit out. I see the majority of football fans hating this if it's implemented. I personally fly back to Buffalo every year for a game. If that game has JA sitting out while healthy I personally will never book another game again!
Cripple Creek Posted July 13, 2019 Posted July 13, 2019 1 minute ago, ColoradoBills said: I personally fly back to Buffalo every year for a game. If that game has JA sitting out while healthy I personally will never book another game again! I'm willing to bet that they'll take you up on it. NFL revenue comes from TV.
ColoradoBills Posted July 13, 2019 Posted July 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said: I'm willing to bet that they'll take you up on it. NFL revenue comes from TV. You can be as trite as you want but the Monday morning sports shows will be dominated by "What would of happened is so and so played"? You conveniently ignored my prime question. What sports FORCE's players to sit out? That's the question, case closed.
Cripple Creek Posted July 13, 2019 Posted July 13, 2019 Just now, ColoradoBills said: You can be as trite as you want but the Monday morning sports shows will be dominated by "What would of happened is so and so played"? You conveniently ignored my prime question. What sports FORCE's players to sit out? That's the question, case closed. So, because it's never been done it cannot be done? And, it wouldn't be FORCING. It would be a mutually agreed upon provision of the collectively bargained agreement. Have you ever heard the term any publicity is good publicity? While I won't go that far, as long as the NFL is grabbing viewers Roger will put up with talking head nonsense.
ColoradoBills Posted July 13, 2019 Posted July 13, 2019 6 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said: So, because it's never been done it cannot be done? And, it wouldn't be FORCING. It would be a mutually agreed upon provision of the collectively bargained agreement. Have you ever heard the term any publicity is good publicity? While I won't go that far, as long as the NFL is grabbing viewers Roger will put up with talking head nonsense. It is forcing players to sit out and I don't believe the players will go for it. We will see. Elite outspoken players will voice their opinions about this (if it gets traction) and their opposition of taking a chance to not go to the Super Bowl because their "replacement" lost 2 games for their team. Once again, we will see.
Cripple Creek Posted July 13, 2019 Posted July 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said: It is forcing players to sit out and I don't believe the players will go for it. We will see. Elite outspoken players will voice their opinions about this (if it gets traction) and their opposition of taking a chance to not go to the Super Bowl because their "replacement" lost 2 games for their team. Once again, we will see. A vast majority of the players "want to play" the game. But, just think of all the intrigue that this could bring into the league. Bellichick sits Brady for a game in OP. Can you imagine how that will be played up inside and outside of the locker room? My God, that would be so much fun. This place would go nuts. It would be a chess match for a coach to figure out who & when.
Gugny Posted July 13, 2019 Posted July 13, 2019 6 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said: A vast majority of the players "want to play" the game. But, just think of all the intrigue that this could bring into the league. Bellichick sits Brady for a game in OP. Can you imagine how that will be played up inside and outside of the locker room? My God, that would be so much fun. This place would go nuts. It would be a chess match for a coach to figure out who & when. Agreed. Would make suicide pools more interesting, too.
H2o Posted July 13, 2019 Posted July 13, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, Cripple Creek said: They'll cut two preseason games that nobody cares about and add two in season games. Players, under this proposal, would play a maximum of 16 in season games, the same as today. Your arguments aren't making sense. They're making complete sense, but you can't see it the forest for the trees. It would make it to where you have to pick and choose which players to sit for at least 2 games a year. The only difference is those 2 games could cost your team where as right now they are games "nobody cares about" like you say. It's stupid. Edited July 13, 2019 by H2o
Boatdrinks Posted July 13, 2019 Posted July 13, 2019 45 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said: It is forcing players to sit out and I don't believe the players will go for it. We will see. Elite outspoken players will voice their opinions about this (if it gets traction) and their opposition of taking a chance to not go to the Super Bowl because their "replacement" lost 2 games for their team. Once again, we will see. I believe the part about 16 game eligibility was put in to appease the players. They don’t want to play more games. 4 minutes ago, H2o said: They're making complete sense, but you can't see it the forest for the trees. It would make it to where you have to pick and choose which players to sit for at least 2 games a year. The only difference is those 2 games could cost your team where as right now they are games "nobody cares about" like tou say. It's stupid. I don’t like the idea of only 16 game eligibility in an 18 game season, but I think much of this would take care of itself. Lots of starters miss games during the year, so it would be easy to choose which games to “ sit “ them for.
Boatdrinks Posted July 13, 2019 Posted July 13, 2019 2 hours ago, formerlyofCtown said: They can get high as **** for two of them. All of them if they are not already “ in the program”. The NFL doesn’t test during the season. 3 hours ago, mjd1001 said: The players need to only play 16 of the 18 games...I hate that idea. I want an 18 game seasons.....the other ideas I like that have been brought up: Expand the gameday roster and the total roster and go with 2 bye weeks. Only 2 preaseason games..or get rid of the preseason totally. No no no. Do not add any bye weeks, they are terrible. 5 hours ago, SoCal Deek said: The coaches already self-reduced the preseason games. The fourth game has become a total joke. Yep, and the first one isn’t much better. They can be eliminated and the players would probably push for this.
Cripple Creek Posted July 13, 2019 Posted July 13, 2019 19 minutes ago, H2o said: They're making complete sense, but you can't see it the forest for the trees. It would make it to where you have to pick and choose which players to sit for at least 2 games a year. The only difference is those 2 games could cost your team where as right now they are games "nobody cares about" like you say. It's stupid. Brilliant is what it is, and fun.
nucci Posted July 13, 2019 Author Posted July 13, 2019 3 hours ago, Locomark said: NFL Players bodies can't take an 18 game season. You would need 70 man rosters. I love watching games, so as a fan I am all for it, but right now many teams can barely stay healthy for 16. The roster expansion would be key. I really don't think the players association should vote against increasing the season by 10% if you added 30% more jobs. I do question how much small market cities like Buffalo would have to jack up its prices to pay for that though.... Pay for what? TV revenue increases, players still get a % of revenues and there is a salary cap.
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted July 13, 2019 Posted July 13, 2019 2 hours ago, Cripple Creek said: Owners are greedy. Players are greedy. They'll figure out a way to make it work. Fans are an afterthought. ...inevitable?.....work stoppage....let the greedmeisters fight it out over a $10 BILLION DOLLAR cash cow......and to think Billy Shaw played for 18 grand a year with time off from mixing cement and enjoying a smoke and beer post game in front of his locker....
Cripple Creek Posted July 13, 2019 Posted July 13, 2019 4 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ...inevitable?.....work stoppage....let the greedmeisters fight it out over a $10 BILLION DOLLAR cash cow...... Pretty much, though they'll do everything possible to avoid a stoppage. That's the one thing that might possibly turn away some fans permanently.
Rocket94 Posted July 13, 2019 Posted July 13, 2019 5 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ...inevitable?.....work stoppage....let the greedmeisters fight it out over a $10 BILLION DOLLAR cash cow......and to think Billy Shaw played for 18 grand a year with time off from mixing cement and enjoying a smoke and beer post game in front of his locker.... Man...they didn't make much did they!
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted July 13, 2019 Posted July 13, 2019 9 minutes ago, Rocket94 said: Man...they didn't make much did they! ...LMAO...bet Pegula pays the Rockpile Beerman $2+ mil....... 1
from_dunkirk Posted July 13, 2019 Posted July 13, 2019 (edited) On 7/12/2019 at 12:22 PM, plenzmd1 said: and that could be on strategy...be interesting to see what other people might do. Timing is one problem to me. Labor Day is problematic for both TV ratings and attendance, althouh I would love it.Maybe this pushes the schedule so that the SuperBowl is Presidents day weekend every year? Then the car dealers would be upset, since that is a weekend they do a lot of business. And also the NBA All-Star Game is around that time, isn't it? Edited July 13, 2019 by from_dunkirk
Formerly Allan in MD Posted July 13, 2019 Posted July 13, 2019 Money in the owner's bank: Yes Were coaches consulted: Doubtful Were players consulted: Doubtful Worth doing: Yes, if you're an owner Final verdict: Dumb idea, unless you're an owner 1
machine gun kelly Posted July 13, 2019 Posted July 13, 2019 I still say they go for a 17 game season with one game at a neutral site to expand the audience, and reduce the pre-season to one or two games. Then add one team to the wildcard so there is only one team who gets a bye, and the revenue increases for players and owners. Not my idea, it is what Pat Kirwan has been purporting as the 18 with everyone with two games off is stupid and problematic. 1
from_dunkirk Posted July 13, 2019 Posted July 13, 2019 23 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ...bigger question is limiting players to 16 games played.......thus you have to start others with an 18 game schedule and use other backup players more often,diluting the product......how does "limiting players to 16 games played" work?.....full games?.....cumulative minutes that constitute a "game played( 30, 45, or ??)"?...quite the effed up proposed mess IMO.... In two games, the 22 regular starters could not appear at all. The rule would not apply to special teams players. Players are allowed to start up to 16 games per season. No gimmicks, like your back-up QB starting for one play on two games and then your starter going in. 23 hours ago, Virgil said: 2 preseason games and add an extra bye week. That would seem to cover the safety bucket. They tried having two bye weeks years ago, in the 90's I think. Everyone hated it. Fans of each team went crazy on those two bye weeks. It lasted only that year. 23 hours ago, Boatdrinks said: No need for extra bye week. It’s purpose is only to add an extra week of games for networks as it is. 18 regular season games accomplishes this. Every game carries risk, even the preseason as we see each and every year. In which case you can eliminate the single bye week then...if the purpose of the bye week is only to add an extra game.
Recommended Posts