Report: NFL owners pitch 18-game schedule

[from_dunkirk]

23 hours ago, Cripple Creek said:

Is this a serious question? If this rule came to be, do you really think that there's a coach out there who would consider breaking it?

 

Plus, they couldn't even break it if they tried, as those players would be inactive that week, by rule.

22 hours ago, NewDayBills said:

This is going to destroy the record books. Once prestigious records will now be everyday norms. That pisses me off.

 

How?? When they added two games to the 14 game schedule of the 70's, nothing changed. OJ's and Jim Brown's rushing records stood for years after that. So did Babe Ruth's homerun record in MLB when they added more games.

Edited July 13, 2019 by from_dunkirk

[from_dunkirk]

21 hours ago, Logic said:

The fans don't want this. The players don't want this.

The ONLY group that wants this is the owners, which is a group of people who are already incredibly wealthy.

They just keep trying to fix what isn't broken. The NFL is the most popular sport in America, and they're hellbent on ruining it in the name of lining their pockets even more than they already do. It's incredibly sad and a real shame to watch.

 

 

The league belongs to the owners. They can do with it what they wish. This is how capitalism works.

21 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

I mean it’s a business and I get that.  But man, this is a bad look for a league that pretends like they care about the players.  It’s why unless for a rare exception, you should never side with an owner over a player.  These guys are just pieces of meat to them that they get rid of the second they can’t produce. 

 

Teams do care about their players and even former players. Why do you think the Boston Red Sox flew David Ortiz to the US in a medical plane from the Dominican Republic even though he had been retired for years?

[from_dunkirk]

22 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Not much impact on individual records since each player still plays 16 games a season.

 

I think they just end up adding a bye week and eliminating a preseason game.  The extra tv revenue for the one week will more than make up for one less preseason game.

 

It would actually hurt individual player records. For example, Josh Allen would not be able to pad his stats again bad teams like Miami, as the Bills would surely to choose to sit him in those two games, as everyone agrees they are tanking this season.

20 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Pretty sure the smart teams would wait it out a bit and sit the starting QB due to A)An injury or B)A team they believe they can beat without the starter. It would be stupid to pigeon hole the first two or final two IMO. I could see a team going with the first two games, but definitely not the final two. Analytically, it would be wise to choose the games for a particular reason.

 

The teams would go with the final two games if the QB was injured, if they have already clinched a playoff spot/homefield advantage, or if they were out of contention.

Edited July 13, 2019 by from_dunkirk

[from_dunkirk]

15 hours ago, WhoTom said:

 

Currently:

6 divisional games

4 games against one division in your conference

4 games against one division in the other conference

2 games against teams in the other two divisions in your conference who placed the same in their respective divisions

 

Extra 2 games:

You play those last two teams twice each: once at home and once away.

 

 

That would be too boring. Do it how the NFL did it in the 80's: you play two teams each from those two other inter-conference divisions instead of just one. You either play the first and third place teams in the division from last year or the second and fourth place teams.

[from_dunkirk]

10 hours ago, Chandler#81 said:

 

It really is.

If you select what you believe are weak opponents to sit QB, you give opponent great incentive: Stupid

If you’re in a situation where you have to win the last 2 games but your QB isn’t eligible:    Really Stupid

 

The obvi answer is larger rosters, but that costs $$, of which this foolish offering lays their greed out for all to see.

My take; 17 regular season games, 3 Preseason games. It’ll likely do away with many tiebreaker scenarios while giving new/young players an opportunity to showcase their wares for consideration.

 

 

 

 

I believe incentives/player motivation is overrated. It really comes down to skill. The team that feels disrespected by your playing your backup QB might have more motivation, but it will not do that much if you suck anyway. Look at the Bills: we have had plenty of motivation that last 17 years or so to beat the Patriots, but we haven't won that much.

 

Also, how would one more regular season game eliminate many of the tie breaker situations?

9 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

The problem with 17 regular season games is you'd have an uneven number of home and away games.  The only way I see that working is to designate a "neutral" field for one of the games.  Maybe every team plays in England and they get one game a week over there.

 

Or just have each team play an international game each year. Or just have them alternate each year: one year 9 home games and 8 away, and the next the year the opposite.

[from_dunkirk]

5 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

.....and which TWO games does Barkley start?..........

 

Against Miami, obviously. ?

5 hours ago, nucci said:

Preseason games are not needed...most established players barely play...it's why there is only 1 cut down date so the fringe players stick around to play 

 

They need one or two games to figure out who is going to be cut. They need the third game so they starters can tune up. In that game, most teams have the starters play three quarters.

3 hours ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

It's not even just those positions.  Return guys, gunners, how do you rotate the OL guys.

It's going to water down the competition and be a nightmare for Head Coaches.

 

What if you plan on your starting TE to sit that week and the 2nd string TE gets nicked up in practice.

Now you are forced to start the 3rd string TE.

What if that scenario happens to a punt return guy and the 3rd string guy fumbles 3 punts?

Fans (especially fantasy ((which I am not)) and Vegas bettors) will be pissed.

 

There will be constant criticism from the fans about who the HC should of sat or should of played for each game.

 

It's a stupid idea and should not be implemented.

 

The rule would only be applied to the regular 22 starters. Special teams would not be affected. They could play all 18 games.

[nucci]

36 minutes ago, from_dunkirk said:

 

 

 

They need one or two games to figure out who is going to be cut. They need the third game so they starters can tune up. In that game, most teams have the starters play three quarters.

 

 

No they don't...they see these guys practice every day.....plan a couple of scrimmages against another team and you're good......most teams know 40-45 players they are going to keep. I can cut 20 from the 90 man roster right now. This past preseason a lot of teams sat starters the 3rd game

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

2 hours ago, Cripple Creek said:

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.

 

 

...floating purely asinine proposals like this deserve a work stoppage....but TV revenues will save their gluttonous arses....where e;le would advertisers invest commercial time on Sundays?....I Love Lucy reruns?.......The Weather Channel?....gotcha by "the boyz"...........

Edited July 13, 2019 by OldTimeAFLGuy

[Doc Brown]

4 hours ago, from_dunkirk said:

Or just have each team play an international game each year. Or just have them alternate each year: one year 9 home games and 8 away, and the next the year the opposite.

The first was my suggestion and would help grow the game internationally.  You'd have to change season ticket prices every year with the second option.

[Steptide]

I didn't read all 7 pages of reply, but was it mentioned that Tasker had this idea on one bills live a while back? He mentions it every so often and Murph typically laughs at him. Rightfully so, it's a horrific idea 

[ALLEN1QB]

I think there should be football every Sunday 52 games a year. 

[JoPar_v2]

3 hours ago, Steptide said:

I didn't read all 7 pages of reply, but was it mentioned that Tasker had this idea on one bills live a while back? He mentions it every so often and Murph typically laughs at him. Rightfully so, it's a horrific idea 

 

I thought of this too I was listening that day last month. Murph laughed in his face.

[RobbRiddick]

In a way I quite like this, purely from a tactical POV. As a coach deciding when to sit out certain players based on your opponent's strengths and weaknesses. Though I understand why a ticket holder would be pissed if they got one of the weeks when Allen wasn't playing. 

[DuckyBoys]

18 games is too much.  It would just water things down and more injuries, shorter careers, more meaningless games.  They want to add revenue just dump direct tv  as the exclusive provider  Offer  more different ways to view football ala cart

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

21 hours ago, Cripple Creek said:

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.

 

 

...NFL was pretty lucky in rebounding back in '87........MLB was not so lucky back in '94, thus quietly launching "The Juice Era" to lure fans back.....and now with MLB facing their 4th consecutive year of declining attendance, baseballs made by Rawlings (which MLB owns...COUGH) are flying out of ballparks in record numbers....."Juice Deuce"??...........

[Steptide]

11 hours ago, JoPar_v2 said:

 

I thought of this too I was listening that day last month. Murph laughed in his face.

The sad thing is, Tasker actually asked some national reporter about it when they had him on. Can't remember who it was, but the guy was like, "wait did you just say 18 game schedule where they sit starters 2 games?". He thought it was ridiculous also, but here we are... 

[ColoradoBills]

21 hours ago, from_dunkirk said:

 

Against Miami, obviously. ?

 

They need one or two games to figure out who is going to be cut. They need the third game so they starters can tune up. In that game, most teams have the starters play three quarters.

 

The rule would only be applied to the regular 22 starters. Special teams would not be affected. They could play all 18 games.

 

So if Shady and Gore split the 1st offensive play for each game who is the "regular" starter?

 

Any way you cut it, it's a stupid idea IMO.

Edited July 14, 2019 by ColoradoBills

[Cripple Creek]

59 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

...NFL was pretty lucky in rebounding back in '87........MLB was not so lucky back in '94, thus quietly launching "The Juice Era" to lure fans back.....and now with MLB facing their 4th consecutive year of declining attendance, baseballs made by Rawlings (which MLB owns...COUGH) are flying out of ballparks in record numbers....."Juice Deuce"??...........

We'll have to as @Gugny & @BringBackFergy.  I really don't follow baseball any more.

[T master]

Why wouldn't they increase the roster size if they are going to add games which i think is stupid but i'm just a fan ! 

 

I've heard in the past they would do this by cutting the pre season yet i have heard other ex players & annalists say that even with the way the pre season is set up now & the lack of training camp with the CBA as it stands that it takes the players a couple of regular season games to get into actually game shape ? .

 

So lets add 2 more games to the season & take 2 games away from the preseason so then the 2 regular season games that it now takes the players to get into game shape turns into 4 games to get into game shape, but because the NFL can make more money ! 

 

Then having the possibility with leaving the roster at the same size & losing more players due to not being in game shape at the start of the season with the lessened amount of camp & pre season to get into said game shape makes a ton of sense to me  !!

 

Probably just as much sense as this rant makes to all of you ? ...

[BILLS55]

So I don't think this is a bad Idea at all. Gets rid of two preseason games that don't matter and adds another layer of complexity to the game. As for season ticket holders, most likely the games the starters do not play will be road games. Lets say your the 2-5 Bills are on the road at the Patriots.  A game they are most likely to loose. You sit your starters.  It gives them a break and lets your backups get some real game experience.  So if i'm the coach of an .500 team, I'm sitting my guy on the two hardest road games.  So now the pats have to decide weather or not to sit theirs guys,  chancing the win, and upsetting the the home crowd with backups.  I doubt they would do that. The pats are a team that on track to make the playoffs. If they sit them early in the season and they have a 1st round bye locked up week 13, well too bad, your ***** out of luck, they have to play.  

 

It will definitely suck for Fantasy guys and pick-em pools.  I'm guessing if the rule does go into effect it wouldn't be a game time decision. It would probably have to have roster set by the beginning of the week. 

 

THoughts?