18 Game Season in 2012 proposal given to players' union

[SanAntonioSteelerFan]

Owners like it, apparently.

I wonder if injuries increase towards the end of the season? The NFL might be killing the golden egg-laying goose if they lose their stars due to fatigue-induced injury, just to gain 2/16 more revenue (gate, TV, etc.).

I'm not sure I'm in favor of it ...

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2010 ... union/?hpw (http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/n-f-l-brings-expanded-season-proposal-to-union/?hpw)

June 16, 2010, 3:43 pm
N.F.L. Brings Expanded Season Proposal to Union
By LYNN ZINSER

At a meeting between the N.F.L. and the players’ association negotiating teams in New York on Wednesday, the league spelled out its proposal for expanding the regular season to 18 games while cutting preseason games back to two. The two sides met for several hours in their first session since early February.

The two sides did not discuss any of the issues involved, said Mark Murphy, the president of the Packers, who is a member of the N.F.L.’s negotiating team. Murphy said most of the details of expanding the regular season would have to be ironed out in negotiations, including potentially expanding rosters, altering the off-season schedule and changing injured-reserve rules. Murphy said 2012 would be the earliest an 18-game schedule could be started.

According to the union, the players’ main concerns involve increased risk of injury in a longer season.

“I’ve been blessed to play this game for so long, but it’s time to start thinking about what legacy and impact changes like this will leave for the players of tomorrow and us after we retire.” Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis said in a statement released by the players’ association. “I know our fans may not like preseason games and I don’t like all of them, but swapping two preseason games for two end-of-season games—when players already play hurt—comes at a huge cost for the player and the team.”

Patriots quarterback Tom Brady said: “I’ve taken part in several postseason runs where we have played 20 games. The long-term impact this game has on our bodies is well documented.”

Murphy said an N.F.L. study has shown that injury rates do not increase as the season progresses, but that the league was sensitive to the players’ safety fears. He said the league would look at the structure of the off-season, consider a bye week between the preseason and regular season and other modifications the players might propose.

The union has also suggested that players’ compensation should be boosted because of the addition of two regular season games. The league’s position is that because the overall number of games does not change, player pay should remain the same.

“In the current system, players are our partners,” Murphy said, referring to player compensation being approximately 60 percent of league revenues under the salary cap system. “If we can grow revenue and improve the game, they benefit.”

The expanded regular season has not been voted on by N.F.L. owners, Murphy said, but added, “It has a lot of momentum among the owners. It addresses a real problem we have in our league, the quality of the preseason.”

The league also proposed starting a developmental league, with the goal of giving more preparation time to young players that would be lost by cutting out preseason games. Murphy said that starters rarely play more than five or six quarters of the preseason and the major beneficiaries of the extra time are young players and backups.

[hawaiiansteel]

Union bristles at league's P.R. campaign on "enhanced season"

Posted by Mike Florio on June 16, 2010


The NFL and the players' union met Wednesday for the first time since February 25 to negotiate the terms of a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. Not long after the session ended, Packer president Mark Murphy made a beeline to the media regarding the so-called "enhanced season," a term that we previously thought was a reference to Brian Cushing's award-winning rookie year.

The union isn't pleased, we're told, by the league's efforts to so quickly take the details public. Though the two sides in this slow-motion square dance long ago abandoned their agreement to keep the content of the talks confidential, the league's brazen rush to the microphones will cause more problems than it solves.

Meanwhile, a union source expressed concern regarding the possibility of additional injuries via an 18-game regular season, pointing out that the folks charged with determining the risks of adding extra games "are the same people who for decades denied that concussions are linked to brain damage."

We're told that no further talks currently are scheduled. And that may be the best news of the day. If the first talks in nearly four months served only to piss one side off, they're better off not talking at all.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ed-season/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/06/16/union-bristles-at-leagues-pr-campaign-on-enhanced-season/)

[MeetJoeGreene]

I am not in favor of it at all.

If it does go through, there should expanded roster sizes.

[stlrz d]

I vote no.

Wish I had a vote. :(

[Oviedo]

No issue with 18 games as long as they expand rosters, both total and gameday.

We all read about the same "concerns" when they went from 14 to 16 games.

For a player making the league minimum of $350K (I think) that is a little less than $20K per game/week for 18 weeks. Would anyone on this board turn that down?

[flippy]

Should free up some season tickets. Hopefully some out there can't afford tickets for an extra game.

And the extra game should also drive down scalpers prices since there will be an extra game and more tickets available.

Actually it would be cool if teams sent an extra charge for the PSL for the rights to the seat for the extra game. That could shake out some extra season tickets.

Or what if they offered a 1 game PSL to the folks on the waiting list and sold that 1 extra game ticket to a different fan?

There's a huge opportunity here for more fans to get tickets.

[stlrz d]

I don't want expanded rosters of guys who aren't good enough to make an NFL roster now.

I want quality players in good health.

To use how much they make (given the severe punishments their bodies take) is a short sighted point of view, imo.

[flippy]

I don't want expanded rosters of guys who aren't good enough to make an NFL roster now.

I want quality players in good health.

To use how much they make (given the severe punishments their bodies take) is a short sighted point of view, imo.

There are lots of great guys out there that weren't good enough to make a roster.

Guys like James Harrison and Kurt Warner come to immediately to mind.

And young guys on the roster would get a better shot at developing more quickly which is a good thing with dressing more guys.

And there'd be some interesting strategy in all of this for the better teams.

Look how many guys we cut who get signed by someone else.

We could develop more players and keep them.

It's a positive for good teams.

[Oviedo]

I don't want expanded rosters of guys who aren't good enough to make an NFL roster now.

I want quality players in good health.

To use how much they make (given the severe punishments their bodies take) is a short sighted point of view, imo.

There are lots of great guys out there that weren't good enough to make a roster.

Guys like James Harrison and Kurt Warner come to immediately to mind.

And young guys on the roster would get a better shot at developing more quickly which is a good thing with dressing more guys.

And there'd be some interesting strategy in all of this for the better teams.

Look how many guys we cut who get signed by someone else.

We could develop more players and keep them.

It's a positive for good teams.

:Agree

[frankthetank1]

I don't want expanded rosters of guys who aren't good enough to make an NFL roster now.

I want quality players in good health.

To use how much they make (given the severe punishments their bodies take) is a short sighted point of view, imo.

i agree. i hate the idea of an 18 game season. they would have to expand the rosters but that isnt a good thing either. i want to see the very best football. i dont want to see a diluted version of the nfl with a bunch of scrubs playing just because of injuries because of the extra games. why mess with the way things are now?

[BURGH86STEEL]

I am not a fan of an 18 game season. It smells of greed.

They can trash 2 of the 4 preseason games for all I care.

[Sugar]

I also hate the idea. The season seems about right as it is- not too short or too long. The toll that this game takes on a players body is brutal and adding more games over time is not a good thing IMO.

There is a law of diminishing returns here- at some point, more NFL football is not a good thing (blasphemy, I know).

[MeetJoeGreene]

I am not a fan of an 18 game season. It smells of greed.

They can trash 2 of the 4 preseason games for all I care.

I am a preseason weanie. I really like watching the rookies and hopefuls in the second half of games.

Althought its not quite as exciting since we have Ben. For years, I would watch the second half of games to see if their seventh round QB out of Southeast Austin state would be a cinderalla story and lead the Steelers back to greatness.

I am not in favor of 18 games, but, to be fair, the expanded roster won't diminish the quality of the players. We would have kept folks like Hank Fraley, Kuhn, etc.

(of course Baltimore may have kept Harrison). Gulp.

[Oviedo]

I am not a fan of an 18 game season. It smells of greed.

They can trash 2 of the 4 preseason games for all I care.

Greed on whose part? Owners? Players? There is greed going all around. The owners want more and the players want more.

Sorry, but asking a guy who if making several million dollars more per year to perform a couple more games isn't unreasonable IMO.

[SteelCrazy]

My biggest concern is by cutting the preseason to 2 games you wont get to see the hopefuls play much at all. Not only because you cut the pre to 2 games, but because the starters will be playing more in those 2 games then they would in 4 preseason games season.

The starters tend to play more in the last 2 games then in the 1st 2 which alleviates the hopefuls.

[Oviedo]

My biggest concern is by cutting the preseason to 2 games you wont get to see the hopefuls play much at all. Not only because you cut the pre to 2 games, but because the starters will be playing more in those 2 games then they would in 4 preseason games season.

The starters tend to play more in the last 2 games then in the 1st 2 which alleviates the hopefuls.

That is why you need to expand the roster and practice squad.

[flippy]

I love preseason. It's an opportunity for unknowns to make names for themselves.

Plus vets don't have to play if they don't want.

[SteelAbility]

It's pretty clear there are arguments on both sides. I think it would require a second bye week to go along with the expanded roster.

That and players get 1 pass on HGH testing. :stirpot :wink:

... Before anyone goes nuts ... J/K. :P

[cruzer8]

There is a law of diminishing returns here- at some point, more NFL football is not a good thing.

Exactly.

18 games is a bad idea for a lot of reasons.

[SteelCrazy]

My biggest concern is by cutting the preseason to 2 games you wont get to see the hopefuls play much at all. Not only because you cut the pre to 2 games, but because the starters will be playing more in those 2 games then they would in 4 preseason games season.

The starters tend to play more in the last 2 games then in the 1st 2 which alleviates the hopefuls.

That is why you need to expand the roster and practice squad.

I agree, but is that being considered?

[flippy]

My biggest concern is by cutting the preseason to 2 games you wont get to see the hopefuls play much at all. Not only because you cut the pre to 2 games, but because the starters will be playing more in those 2 games then they would in 4 preseason games season.

The starters tend to play more in the last 2 games then in the 1st 2 which alleviates the hopefuls.

That is why you need to expand the roster and practice squad.

I agree, but is that being considered?

Good question. If they expand the rosters it's less money for the owners and current players so I expect there'd be resistance.

[BURGH86STEEL]

I am not a fan of an 18 game season. It smells of greed.

They can trash 2 of the 4 preseason games for all I care.

Greed on whose part? Owners? Players? There is greed going all around. The owners want more and the players want more.

Sorry, but asking a guy who if making several million dollars more per year to perform a couple more games isn't unreasonable IMO.
I agree that there is greed going all around.

I don't see any players lobbying to play two more games. I believe the owners are being greedy in this situation.

Not all players make several million dollars per year. I don't believe most NFL players make several millions of dollars per year. The players will want more money if they have to play more games. Ultimately, fans will pay the price one way or another.

I am not in favor of extending the season for one big reason, injuries. Most players play injured. Injuries already have a huge impact on the season. The risk of injury only goes up playing 2 more games. Careers may be shortened as a result. What will the effect of 2 extra games per year have on players after their careers are over? I know fans can careless about what happens after careers are over. It's something I would take into consideration if I were a player. I know for a fact that a price tag can't be placed on health.

The value of divisional games diminishes even more by adding 2 more games (unless those 2 games are divisional opponents).

I don't think the quality of games will be any better at the end of the season. Teams may have more leeway to rest players if they win the division early enough.

There are a whole slew of factors to consider besides the dollar signs that the owners envision. They won't know how those factors will play out until down the road. Only time will tell if any good will come out of playing 2 more games per year. Unless the owners trick the players, I don't see the players agreeing to the proposal.

[flippy]

Question for those against 18 games.

Would you watch the extra games? or is it too much? or too low of perceived quality of games?

What percentage of injuries are because of overworking the players versus freak accidents that just happen?

Other than RB, are there other positions that will break down because of the wear and tear of 18 games? I really don't see it. Teams are already carrying mutliple running backs to share the load over 16 games anyway.

This reminds me of people thinking that the UFC was too dangerous when it first started. But when you peel the layers back, not using gloves like boxing actually makes it a safer sport than boxing because you're not protecting someone's hands.

I think all of the stuff we've seen over the last few years around player safety has been in preparation for the expanded season.

They'll keep making the sport safer and everything will be fine. It's not like they're still wearing leather helmets.

[Oviedo]

I am not a fan of an 18 game season. It smells of greed.

They can trash 2 of the 4 preseason games for all I care.

Greed on whose part? Owners? Players? There is greed going all around. The owners want more and the players want more.

Sorry, but asking a guy who if making several million dollars more per year to perform a couple more games isn't unreasonable IMO.
I agree that there is greed going all around.

I don't see any players lobbying to play two more games. I believe the owners are being greedy in this situation.

Not all players make several million dollars per year. I don't believe most NFL players make several millions of dollars per year. The players will want more money if they have to play more games. Ultimately, fans will pay the price one way or another.

I am not in favor of extending the season for one big reason, injuries. Most players play injured. Injuries already have a huge impact on the season. The risk of injury only goes up playing 2 more games. Careers may be shortened as a result. What will the effect of 2 extra games per year have on players after their careers are over? I know fans can careless about what happens after careers are over. It's something I would take into consideration if I were a player. I know for a fact that a price tag can't be placed on health.

The value of divisional games diminishes even more by adding 2 more games (unless those 2 games are divisional opponents).

I don't think the quality of games will be any better at the end of the season. Teams may have more lead way to rest players if they win the division early enough.

There are a whole slew of factors to consider besides the dollar signs that the owners envision. They won't know how those factors will play out until down the road. Only time will tell if any good will come out of playing 2 more games per year. Unless the owners trick the players, I don't see the players agreeing to the proposal.

I think the NFL minimum salary is $325K this year for a rookie with no experience and $400K for a player with 1 year. It goes up with experience. Therefore you are paying at a minimum $18, 055 per week if you had an 18 game schedule.

That is a pretty sweet salary for someone who is doing what they claim they love, are doing it because they choose to and in 99.9% of the cases were given an opportunity for a free college education in preparation for this career choice. Sorry if I don't think these guys are being abused or mistreated.

Let's go for 18. Heck at a minimum we get the benefit of this fine forum for at least two more weeks of real things to chat about. Who wouldn't be in favor of that, especially for those who live to complain about Arians, Tomlin, etc. :wink:

[BURGH86STEEL]

Question for those against 18 games.

Would you watch the extra games? or is it too much? or too low of perceived quality of games?

What percentage of injuries are because of overworking the players versus freak accidents that just happen?

Other than RB, are there other positions that will break down because of the wear and tear of 18 games? I really don't see it. Teams are already carrying mutliple running backs to share the load over 16 games anyway.

This reminds me of people thinking that the UFC was too dangerous when it first started. But when you peel the layers back, not using gloves like boxing actually makes it a safer sport than boxing because you're not protecting someone's hands.

I think all of the stuff we've seen over the last few years around player safety has been in preparation for the expanded season.

They'll keep making the sport safer and everything will be fine. It's not like they're still wearing leather helmets.

2 more games will give fans an opportunity to miss games. Especially, if those games are meaningless near the end of the season.

I don't think anyone can answer your question about injuries. I don't need numbers to surmise that the risk of injury increases by adding 2 more games.

There are a lot of collisions that happen on the field. The risk of injury increases with every collision. I don't need any fancy numbers to reach that conclusion.

Goodell claims to be concerned about concussions and health of the players. Maybe he should be trying to decrease the number of games played based on what was said? A player will probably have to die on the field for that to happen. Can't put to much blame on Goodell because he takes his marching orders from the owners.

I just don't agree with adding more games to the season because of the risk it poses to overall player health. Those injuries have an effect on the season. Think fans complain now? :lol: Players already play injured. Those injuries put players more at risk for other injuries(see Troy last season). Fatigue is another factor that increases injuries.


Players are much bigger, stronger, and faster then when they played in leather helmets. Pretty soon safer will mean flag football. :lol:

[BURGH86STEEL]

I am not a fan of an 18 game season. It smells of greed.

They can trash 2 of the 4 preseason games for all I care.

Greed on whose part? Owners? Players? There is greed going all around. The owners want more and the players want more.

Sorry, but asking a guy who if making several million dollars more per year to perform a couple more games isn't unreasonable IMO.
I agree that there is greed going all around.

I don't see any players lobbying to play two more games. I believe the owners are being greedy in this situation.

Not all players make several million dollars per year. I don't believe most NFL players make several millions of dollars per year. The players will want more money if they have to play more games. Ultimately, fans will pay the price one way or another.

I am not in favor of extending the season for one big reason, injuries. Most players play injured. Injuries already have a huge impact on the season. The risk of injury only goes up playing 2 more games. Careers may be shortened as a result. What will the effect of 2 extra games per year have on players after their careers are over? I know fans can careless about what happens after careers are over. It's something I would take into consideration if I were a player. I know for a fact that a price tag can't be placed on health.

The value of divisional games diminishes even more by adding 2 more games (unless those 2 games are divisional opponents).

I don't think the quality of games will be any better at the end of the season. Teams may have more lead way to rest players if they win the division early enough.

There are a whole slew of factors to consider besides the dollar signs that the owners envision. They won't know how those factors will play out until down the road. Only time will tell if any good will come out of playing 2 more games per year. Unless the owners trick the players, I don't see the players agreeing to the proposal.

I think the NFL minimum salary is $325K this year for a rookie with no experience and $400K for a player with 1 year. It goes up with experience. Therefore you are paying at a minimum $18, 055 per week if you had an 18 game schedule.

That is a pretty sweet salary for someone who is doing what they claim they love, are doing it because they choose to and in 99.9% of the cases were given an opportunity for a free college education in preparation for this career choice. Sorry if I don't think these guys are being abused or mistreated.

Let's go for 18. Heck at a minimum we get the benefit of this fine forum for at least two more weeks of real things to chat about. Who wouldn't be in favor of that, especially for those who live to complain about Arians, Tomlin, etc. :wink:

I will watch if they play 18 games. I may not watch at the end of the year if there are meaningless games being played. Like most people, there are plenty of potential things to keep us busy.

I think going 18 will affect the overall quality of the games and season. I could be wrong.
We will have to wait and see.

[RuthlessBurgher]

Should free up some season tickets. Hopefully some out there can't afford tickets for an extra game.

And the extra game should also drive down scalpers prices since there will be an extra game and more tickets available.

Actually it would be cool if teams sent an extra charge for the PSL for the rights to the seat for the extra game. That could shake out some extra season tickets.

Or what if they offered a 1 game PSL to the folks on the waiting list and sold that 1 extra game ticket to a different fan?

There's a huge opportunity here for more fans to get tickets.

Season ticket holders do not just pay for the 8 regular season home games. We pay for 10 home games, and they all cost the same. Yup, preseason game are full-price...same as regular season games.

[SanAntonioSteelerFan]

I agree with the thought that injuries would probably go up. The idea of expanded rosters will probably counterbalance that ... but then it might turn into an NBA-like scenario, where you have "the bench" spelling the stars. There's not anything inherently wrong with that, but it will be a different kind of game. FWIW, I wouldn't want to have to adjust to that.

And how would those expanded roster players be used? Would Dixon give Roethlisberger a break for the first 8 minutes of the 4th quarter every game, just because there are two more games a season? Would someone spell Deebo, just because they're on the roster?

I don't think so, I think the owners will keep the star players on the field for just as much of every game as they do now. So, expanded roster or not, the exposure to injury will go up with an 18 game season. It's not just the RBs, but the linemen, everyone - more collisions = more injuries.

:Blah :Blah , so all in all, I prefer the 16 game season. Just my :2c

[Steelerphile]

I think this is the worst and most questionable idea Goddell has had. I am completely opposed to this. I question Goddell's judgment, a lot. Teams need time to evaluate their new talent and the veterans don't play a lot in preseason. The game is too tough and physical to ask that much more of the players.

If this does pass, I don't think it will it will stand for a long period of time. 16 games is about right and you can't just keep pushing the number higher.

[SteelAbility]

The more I think about it, the less and less I like the idea of an 18 game season. I think the negatives outweigh the positives in the long-run. It adds a small amount of essence-of-football and whole bunch of water. Fans will end up having to eat more of a less tasty soup and the players will end up having an unsavory taste in their mouth.

[Ghost]

Back in the day preseason was used as a way for players to get in shape. Now it's year long process and player's are expected to come into the preseason at least somewhat ready to go. You don't need the games for getting in shape but you still need them fro evalutation of talent.

If you went to only 2 preseason games - what's the strategy? How much do you play starters to get them some game time action vs. playing guys who are fighting to make the roster? 1 half of each game? A quarter one game and 3 the second?

And expanding the roster doesn't help. No team or coach that's fighting for a playoff spot come game 17 of the season is resting anyone. Conversely, there are teams taking off game 15 and 16 today - adding games won't stop this. You're at the end of the season and all set for the palyoffs, you're absolutely resting the top guys.

The season already runs from August (1st preseason is 8/14) into late January or the first of February.

If Goodell straps on pads and takes 25 to 40 hits every week for 18 weeks then he can talk about how it's not a big deal. Otherwise, kindly STFU and leave it at 16 games.

[Oviedo]

The more I think about it, the less and less I like the idea of an 18 game season. I think the negatives outweigh the positives in the long-run. It adds a small amount of essence-of-football and whole bunch of water. Fans will end up having to eat more of a less tasty soup and the players will end up having an unsavory taste in their mouth.

It equals more money. Guess what wins. The players will not hesitate to agree to 18 games if there is something in it for them.

[cruzer8]

The more I think about it, the less and less I like the idea of an 18 game season. I think the negatives outweigh the positives in the long-run. It adds a small amount of essence-of-football and whole bunch of water. Fans will end up having to eat more of a less tasty soup and the players will end up having an unsavory taste in their mouth.

It equals more money. Guess what wins. The players will not hesitate to agree to 18 games if there is something in it for them.

Players are already speaking out against this even if it does mean more money for them. They have to play at least three seasons just to qualify for five years of retirement health care.

[Oviedo]

The more I think about it, the less and less I like the idea of an 18 game season. I think the negatives outweigh the positives in the long-run. It adds a small amount of essence-of-football and whole bunch of water. Fans will end up having to eat more of a less tasty soup and the players will end up having an unsavory taste in their mouth.

It equals more money. Guess what wins. The players will not hesitate to agree to 18 games if there is something in it for them.

Players are already speaking out against this even if it does mean more money for them. They have to play at least three seasons just to qualify for five years of retirement health care.

Negotiation 101. They are establishing a bargaining position. If they can get more in their pockets they will agree.

[hawaiiansteel]

Updated: June 18, 2010, 1:44 AM ET

Goodell backs 18 regular-season games

Associated Press


NEW YORK -- Commissioner Roger Goodell says the NFL no longer needs four preseason games, but the league should change its offseason training programs.

"It's clear the fans don't want four preseason games," Goodell said Thursday after speaking to high school players at an NFL football clinic in Queens. "It's clear the players don't want four preseason games. They tell me that all the time. You ask them that question and they'll tell you. And we really don't need it to make the game better. So we have to evolve just as we did a couple of decades ago when we went from six preseason games to four."

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2009/0625/nfl_g_goodell_65.jpg

“It's clear the fans don't want four preseason games. It's clear the players don't want four preseason games. They tell me that all the time.”

-- NFL commissioner Roger Goodell


NFL and union officials discussed adding two games to the regular season when they met Wednesday for their first negotiating session since February. Teams would still play a total of 20 games under the proposal. The league would go from four in the preseason and 16 in the regular season to two and 18.

Players have expressed concerns about an increase in injuries. Goodell suggested adjustments in the offseason programs could alleviate that.

"I think you do have to make changes," he said. "We've been very open about that from Day One. I think we have to do it regardless."

Players don't have much of a true offseason these days when they can rest and take a break from football. While certain workouts are technically voluntary, they may not feel that way.

"Obviously there's a lot of pressure from teammates and coaches," Goodell said, "so I think we're going to have to have some guidelines and restrictions on what can be done and can't be done in the offseason."

The collective bargaining agreement expires in March, which could lead to a work stoppage during the 2011 season. Goodell said he wasn't concerned about the tone of the back-and-forth between the league and the NFL Players Association.

"This is a negotiation," he said. "You have to have a dialogue about how to make the game better."

Goodell said he still doesn't have enough information to make a decision on possibly disciplining Vince Young. The Tennessee Titans quarterback received a misdemeanor assault citation after a fight early Sunday at a Dallas strip club.

Surveillance video footage released by Dallas police showed the quarterback and several people talking in a small room before Young attacked someone in the room. Young has apologized and said he hopes he won't receive a suspension.

"Right now we're just gathering facts to make sure we understand all the facts before we make any determination about the next step in our process," Goodell said.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5299518

[hawaiiansteel]

Larry Fitzgerald doesn't want a longer season

Posted by Mike Florio on June 18, 2010


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/assets_c/2010/06/nfl_fitzgerald1_250-thumb-250x185-14049.jpg


We're grateful that the NFL has opted to make a big push for the so-called "enhanced season" on the cusp of the dead period on the calendar, since we'll likely have a stream of posts over the next few weeks with the insights of players who are opposed to (so far, several) and in favor of (so far, only Lance Briggs) an 18-game regular season.

Most recently, Cardinals receiver Larry Fitzgerald has spoken out against growing the games that count by more than 10 percent.

"I think the NFL season is long enough as it is," Fitzgerald told Bickley and MJ on Xtra Sports 910 in Phoenix on Friday. "It is a real grind. . . . It's a brutal sport."

And it is. Regardless of any studies or reports or other analyses, adding two regular-season games equates to adding 120 minutes of live reps at full speed for full-time starters. There will be more injuries, and careers could be shortened.

But Fitzgerald accepts the fact that, if players are paid for two extra games, they'll be willing to play the extra two games.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... er-season/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/06/18/larry-fitzgerald-doesnt-want-a-longer-season/)