NFL owners could reportedly push for 18-game season during labor talks

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

oldnotdead

Legend
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
5,386
In reality IMO this is much about nothing. The 18 game season is a bargaining chip nothing more. But I think that they will shorten preseason probably to 3 games. Since more and more teams aren't playing their starters much if at all due to injury concerns. In fact they don't need any since more and more teams are scrimmaging against other teams. That is really enough to show coaches what they want to see.

Extend TC by a week and eliminate preseason altogether is what I'd like to see.
 

Akrasian

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
4,924
In reality IMO this is much about nothing. The 18 game season is a bargaining chip nothing more. But I think that they will shorten preseason probably to 3 games. Since more and more teams aren't playing their starters much if at all due to injury concerns. In fact they don't need any since more and more teams are scrimmaging against other teams. That is really enough to show coaches what they want to see.

Extend TC by a week and eliminate preseason altogether is what I'd like to see.

I doubt they shorten or eliminate preseason. Those are high-profit games. Token labor expenses, ticket prices still high and required to be bought if you want a full season package.
 

ReekofRams

Hall of Fame
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
3,771
Name
Reek
In reality IMO this is much about nothing. The 18 game season is a bargaining chip nothing more. But I think that they will shorten preseason probably to 3 games. Since more and more teams aren't playing their starters much if at all due to injury concerns. In fact they don't need any since more and more teams are scrimmaging against other teams. That is really enough to show coaches what they want to see.

Extend TC by a week and eliminate preseason altogether is what I'd like to see.
I would like to think there’s nothing to this, but here we are now on our fourth page of discussing this. Why? Because we don’t trust the league to make the right decisions, at least not any more. They’ve been slowly changing the game of football, sometimes to make it safer, sometimes to make money. So that’s why we’ll keep having this discussion until the league puts it to bed.
 

shovelpass

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
4,241

I like the idea of more football, but I'm not sure if I like the idea of a game limit for players. It does seem interesting from a strategic standpoint.
 
Last edited:

Ram65

Legend
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
9,611
LOL they were talking about this on local sports radio on tonight. Imagine having to have toplay two QBs/ FG kickers/ Punters/Long Snappers etc....

It makes absolutely no sense to me to dilute the product on the field for fans. For owners it's for the love of money. Imagine going to a game to find out Jared Goff is not going to play and neither is Aaron Donald while you paid extra money for your family's tickets, travel and everything else. So many things wrong about this. This is wacko. They have to be angling for something else.
 

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
48,145
Name
Burger man
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #67
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...limit-for-all-players-as-cba-talks-intensify/

NFL owners reportedly have proposed 18-game schedule with 16-game limit for all players as CBA talks intensify

It's no secret at least some of the NFL owners are in favor of expanding the regular season from 16 to 18 games. Their desire to stretch the schedule has always been known and it stems from one very obvious desire (more money), but finally, one of the specific ideas they have for an 18-game schedule is no longer a secret.

On Thursday, The Wall Street Journal's Andrew Beaton published an in-depth story on the issue, which should play a role as CBA talks intensify later this month. In his story, Beaton provided one specific proposal that the NFLowners have already pitched the players.

According to Beaton, the NFL owners proposed having an 18-game schedule with a 16-game limit for all players, meaning that backup quarterbacks would be forced to play in at least two games and superstar quarterbacks like Patrick Mahomes and Tom Brady would be forced to sit at least two games per season. It goes beyond quarterbacks, of course. Every player would sit at least two games. That means coaches would be tasked with playing more of their backups more than usual.

On the one hand, teams with better overall depth would be rewarded. On the other hand, does anyone want to watch Blake Bortles or Nathan Peterman or Blaine Gabbert play more football than they have to? Does anyone want to watch those backup quarterbacks play behind backup offensive linemen? Does anyone want to watch those backup quarterbacks play behind backup offensive linemen while throwing to backup receivers? You get the point. It could lead to some unattractive football.

Obviously, just because it has been proposed doesn't mean the players will agree to it. If it does get approved, it might not come with the 16-game player limit. In theory, preventing players from playing in all 18 games would relieve the player-safety concerns many players undoubtedly hold. But according to Beaton, the players find the proposal "unrealistic because key players would be unwilling to ride the bench when the stakes are so high."
An 18-game season isn't the only issue up for debate, but it should play a role in negotiations. It's not difficult to understand both sides of the debate. The NFL owners want more money. Though the players would also get more money with an expanded season and an increase in revenue, they can't ignore the injury aspect. This likely won't be the last time we hear about an 18-game schedule as talks continue later this month. There are other ways the NFL could stretch the season to 18 games.

But it doesn't sound like the players will go for it.

"They're looking at it like, 'Hey get back into the mine and start mining coal,'" said NFLPA president Eric Winston, per The Wall Street Journal.

As has been previously reported by ESPN, negotiations between the NFL and NFLPA are expected to ramp up this month as the two sides target a new agreement before the upcoming season kicks off, even though the current CBA doesn't expire until after the 2020 season. Even if a new deal doesn't materialize this summer, the two sides are reportedly optimistic they aren't heading toward a lockout after the 2020 season.
 

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
48,145
Name
Burger man
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #68
Urg... this one doesn’t sit well.

I mean, does a game missed due to injury count? If so, does that mean you hold off giving games off until the end just in case one comes along? Then what does that game quality look like?

I don’t know, the whole thing sounds hokey.
 

FrantikRam

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
4,730
I've had this idea for a few years, and I think it's brilliant. The more players don't play in preseason, the louder the noise will get for an 18 game season. Having the players play in 16 is a great compromise. And while it's not mandatory, in the MLB and NBA players are constantly given games off to help them stay fresh.

The increased salary cap would go toward expanding the roster - more jobs, more money, more meaningful football - a win for the players, owners and fans.

If a player was injured and missed a game, that would count.

You would probably not rest all of your starters at once - for example, the Rams could have rested some players against the Cardinals last year in week 2.
 

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
48,145
Name
Burger man
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #70
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...upports-17-games-a-regular-season-compromise/

Mark Murphy supports 17 games a regular-season compromise

Given the conflicting quotes attributed to Packers CEO Mark Murphy on Friday, I opted to pretend to be an actual reporter and do some actual reporting.

Short story shorter, I got Murphy on the phone to clarify his thoughts on a potentially expanded regular season.

Murphy said that he remains opposed to 18 games, a position he has taken on multiple occasions in the past. He acknowledges, however, that 17 games could work as an obvious compromise between 16 and 18. Murphy supports 17 regular-season games primarily as a way to continue to grow the game internationally, ensuring that every team would have, every year, eight true home games, eight true road games, and one neutral-site game, with most of those 16 neutral-site games played in other countries. However, Murphy was adamant that the preseason would have to drop to three games, and maybe to only two (despite the loss of revenue that would come from reducing the total number of preseason and regular-season games from 20 to 19).

We interpreted Murphy as being in favor of 18 games based on this quote attributed to him by Darren Rovell of TheActionNetwork.com, in an earlier one-on-one conversation with Murphy: “Maybe another way to do this is to add one neutral site game and one international one for every team, so we can use this to grow the game.” Murphy said that he said (or at least meant to say) “or” not “and,” and that he supports 17 games (with a reduced preseason), not 18 games.

Murphy had opposed expansion of the regular season in the past due to player health and safety, and I specifically asked him whether he believes that advances in player health and safety justify increased regular-season exposure. He said that, even though the “numbers are down” from 2018 as to injuries like concussions, the numbers could go up in any given year, and he acknowledged based on his own experience as a player that there’s a “wear and tear” component that builds throughout a football season. Extending the season only adds to that.

Murphy also didn’t rule out during our conversation the possibility of 17 regular-season games and two byes, which would nudge the Super Bowl to President’s Day weekend, something the league quietly has coveted for years. There’s a concern, however, that the networks wouldn’t want each team to have two byes. (The NFL had one season with two byes, in 1993. Then, the league had only 28 teams, four fewer than the current composition of the standings.)

As to the idea of an 18-game season with a maximum player participation of 16, Murphy made it clear that he’s not in favor of that approach, primarily because he believes that fans would not like it. He agreed with my assessment of such an approach as “gimmicky,” and he expressed concern for fans who, for example, have always wanted to see Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers play not getting to see him play because those fans have the misfortune of holding tickets to one of the two games in which Rodgers won’t play.

Personally, I like the 17-game regular season, for many reasons. I don’t like 8-8 records; 9-8 or 8-9 would clearly make a team a loser or a winner for the year. (And, yes, I realize that someone could end up 8-8-1.) I also like the idea of 16 neutral-site games, especially since it could mean a game at Ann Arbor or a game at Notre Dame or a game at Happy Valley or a game at Ohio Stadium or a game at some other large, iconic venue, which of course could be wired for real-time video communication with the league office.
 

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
48,145
Name
Burger man
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #71
I've had this idea for a few years, and I think it's brilliant. The more players don't play in preseason, the louder the noise will get for an 18 game season. Having the players play in 16 is a great compromise. And while it's not mandatory, in the MLB and NBA players are constantly given games off to help them stay fresh.

The increased salary cap would go toward expanding the roster - more jobs, more money, more meaningful football - a win for the players, owners and fans.

If a player was injured and missed a game, that would count.

You would probably not rest all of your starters at once - for example, the Rams could have rested some players against the Cardinals last year in week 2.

I’m trying to be open to this... grr...

Does a snap count achieve the same goal as limiting the game count? In other words, maybe you rest a guy for a quarter in a game that is well him hand, or something?

I get “the rest” is not the same, but maybe the wear and tear is eased?

I don’t know. Just tossing stuff out there. Not sure I like the game limit idea.
 

Akrasian

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
4,924
I still like RiverUmbq's idea earlier in the thread of adding an extra bye week, but still having 16 games. That should add a bit more tv revenue, and actually be beneficial for player health, with a bit more rest for nagging injuries to heal rather than get worse with trying to play on them. It would actually improve quality of play too, with players being somewhat healthier.
 

LARams_1963

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 29, 2016
Messages
2,735
Name
greg
I think it's an absolutely horrible idea. To lose potential playoff spots because you had to sit more starters in a crucial game than the opponent. Stupid idea. The owners are willing to sacrifice the quality and integrity of the game for more profits.
 

FrantikRam

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
4,730
I think it's an absolutely horrible idea. To lose potential playoff spots because you had to sit more starters in a crucial game than the opponent. Stupid idea. The owners are willing to sacrifice the quality and integrity of the game for more profits.


Ehh...every team would have to do it, and if you end up having to sit more starters in a crucial game, that's on you.

The only drawback I see to this is that you may buy tickets hoping to see a generational talent play and he ends up being rested - but it's the NFL, and players get hurt all the time, so that generational talent might be injured for the game you bought tickets for anyway.
 

XXXIVwin

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Messages
4,755
I hate the interminable offseason, I think the reg season should be longer, and having FOUR meaningless preseason games is ridiculous. Keeping the slate at 20 games— with 18 reg season, and 2 preseason— sounds perfect.

OTOH, I recognize that pro football is an ultra-violent sport that imposes a huge physical toll on the players, and I completely understand why they wouldn’t want to subject their bodies to a full 18 reg season games.

18 game season with a 16-game limit per player? I think it’s a fascinating compromise that *could* be a win-win-win for everyone.

Owners get more $, players don’t have to play any more games, fans get 2 more weeks of entertainment. Yeah, the whole “scheduling” of the 2 off-games per player would take some getting used to, and would provoke tons of debate over strategy.... but frankly, fans tend to enjoy strategy debates.

OTOH... yet again...many fans, perhaps most, wouldn’t like the idea. There would be a huge number of ‘unintended consequences’ with the 16 game ‘limit’ per player.

So I’m on the fence on this one....
 
Last edited:

oldnotdead

Legend
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
5,386
They are going to need to expand the roster to 60 and be able to activate all players every week. Teams like the Rams with good depth will win most of those games. But teams with poor depth are probably going to get knocked out of the playoffs. It's not a long season so every win or loss is significant. Makes no sense to limit players to 16 games which means some games will be like preseason. Teams with big leads in their division will simply be willing to burn a game. How does this make the overall season better? Too many holes in that idea
 

ScotsRam

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
3,159
Name
Niall
It's not going to happen but it's a much better idea than you guys are giving it credit for.

It's like baseball with a pitching rotation. Think about the extra layer of strategy involved in a forced rotation. I think it could make the sport significantly more interesting, if not higher quality for those specific games.

My guess is there will be a compromise though. 17 regular season games with 2 bye weeks taking the current 17 week slate of competitive regular season football up to 19 weeks sounds pretty fucking good to me. The football season is so limited and I selfishly want more of it. At this point in the offseason, I'd watch a scrimmage between the Arkansas peewee champions and the london silly nannies if you televised it.
 

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
48,145
Name
Burger man
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #80
I think I am in this camp, or close to it.

Adding another bye seems like a no brainer, but that’s obviously not the same revenue generator as an additional game... but it adds some at least with the TV deals.

I still like RiverUmbq's idea earlier in the thread of adding an extra bye week, but still having 16 games. That should add a bit more tv revenue, and actually be beneficial for player health, with a bit more rest for nagging injuries to heal rather than get worse with trying to play on them. It would actually improve quality of play too, with players being somewhat healthier.

My guess is there will be a compromise though. 17 regular season games with 2 bye weeks taking the current 17 week slate of competitive regular season football up to 19 weeks sounds pretty freaking good to me. The football season is so limited and I selfishly want more of it. At this point in the offseason, I'd watch a scrimmage between the Arkansas peewee champions and the london silly nannies if you televised it.