PDA

View Full Version : 18 Game Schedule - A done deal!



Ghost
09-28-2010, 08:23 AM
Bill Polian says the 18-game NFL season is a done deal.

During Monday night's weekly radio show, the Indianapolis Colts team president called it a "fait accompli" and said the debate is over. Polian is a member of the league's competition committee and has worked in the league office.

He's concerned that getting rid of two preseason games to expand the regular season from 16 to 18 games will cost coaches and team officials opportunities to evaluate rookies. The solution, Polian says, might be hooking up with nearby teams for combined practices or controlled scrimmages.

League owners and the commissioner have expressed support for an expanded regular-season schedule, but have not said a decision has been made.

flippy
09-28-2010, 08:32 AM
Here come the new records. We can forget about this era now.

bostonsteeler
09-28-2010, 08:36 AM
This is such a bad bad idea.

The schedule will be watered down. Games become slightly less important.

More importantly, the extra wear-and-tear on the players will considerably shorten their careers and may even have life-long effects on them.

I don't like this at all.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
09-28-2010, 08:41 AM
Don't the players have some ability to respond?

Ghost
09-28-2010, 08:50 AM
Don't the players have some ability to respond?

This was my first thought as well. I thought the players had to agree to this?

BradshawsHairdresser
09-28-2010, 09:09 AM
I'd rather see them DROP a game or two from the schedule (maybe one preseason game and one regular-season game).

steelblood
09-28-2010, 09:09 AM
The 18 game schedule is being used as bargaining chip to grow the money pie of the NFL.

Frankly, we as fans need to have our voices heard. We really should consider uniting some of these team forums to send a message to league. What if we bought no products from NFL.com for a week (just to show we have the only voice that matters)? What if we somehow promoted something where if the NFL labor dispute is not settled by late-season, all fans at games in week 17, turn their backs on the kickoffs to show that we will not put up with an impasse/work stoppage. There will be consequences.

Chadman
09-28-2010, 09:21 AM
Hang on- before we all talk 'doom & gloom'- doesn't a longer season put more money in both the Team Owners & the Players hands?

Isn't this what both sides have been wanting during the contract talks?

It's not making 'the playing season' longer, really- it's shortening the meaningless games in pre-season- where players HAVE been getting hurt. It's not like pre-season protects a players health.

If this is a genuine option as a solution to avoiding a non-playing year- sign Chadman up in support.

Maybe if the League offers an extra 2 roster spots to help deal with 'the wear & tear' on players?

Oviedo
09-28-2010, 09:30 AM
Hang on- before we all talk 'doom & gloom'- doesn't a longer season put more money in both the Team Owners & the Players hands?

Isn't this what both sides have been wanting during the contract talks?

It's not making 'the playing season' longer, really- it's shortening the meaningless games in pre-season- where players HAVE been getting hurt. It's not like pre-season protects a players health.

If this is a genuine option as a solution to avoiding a non-playing year- sign Chadman up in support.

Maybe if the League offers an extra 2 roster spots to help deal with 'the wear & tear' on players?

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. This is all about the money and once the players see they get more compensation in one form or another they will quit reciting the unions negotiating talking points, take the money and run.

Keep in mind that this is not "oppressive" billionaire owners forcing something on "poor" millionaire players. This is about the "goose that lays the golden eggs" otherwise known as TV contracts. The brfoadcasters have maxed out their revenue streams in the form of advertisers for a 16 game season. The only way to get more is more games. That is what this is about.

If you really want to see a bad situation watch what would happen without 18 games when the next TV contracts come up for renewal and there is less dollars. Everyone would lose then--players and owners.

SteelAbility
09-28-2010, 09:36 AM
Totally sucks.

ikestops85
09-28-2010, 09:53 AM
So will this mean that running backs who are 29 will now be considered 'over the hill' instead of the magic age of 30 now?

Chadman, the regulars barely play in the pre-season so this will not be maintaining the wear and tear they now suffer ... it will increase. I love my football but I don't like this expansion of the schedule.

Oviedo
09-28-2010, 10:00 AM
One good outcome is that message board rangers like us will have less time in the preseason to fall in love with preseason illusions like Dennis Dixon and other future FedEx drivers who we swear are better than anyone on the rosters.

Seriously though as long as they make adjustments to practice squads and the gameday roster sizes so players don't have to do double duty and coaches can rotate players like we have done the last two game I don't think you will see anymore negative effects than you did going from 14 games to 16 games.

Back then people were predicting doomsday too. Five years after they implement the 18 games this will be a non-issue

Ghost
09-28-2010, 10:03 AM
A lot of talk about meaningless pre-season games but for a lot of players that's not true. They make the team based on those games. If there are only 2 games and you have to get the vets time to practice you're going to see a lot less of the rookies play.

Not that he's making a huge difference but Jonathan Dwyer does not make the team without the last 2 preseason games. Possibly Butler either. And the final linemen decision may have come down to those last 2 games.

As a fan I hate this decision.

ikestops85
09-28-2010, 10:18 AM
A lot of talk about meaningless pre-season games but for a lot of players that's not true. They make the team based on those games. If there are only 2 games and you have to get the vets time to practice you're going to see a lot less of the rookies play.

Not that he's making a huge difference but Jonathan Dwyer does not make the team without the last 2 preseason games. Possibly Butler either. And the final linemen decision may have come down to those last 2 games.

As a fan I hate this decision.

:Agree

Does a Willie Parker make the team? How about a Donnie Shell? Yes, I'm sure that if it is implemented we will get used to it but that doesn't make it better.

Oviedo
09-28-2010, 10:32 AM
A lot of talk about meaningless pre-season games but for a lot of players that's not true. They make the team based on those games. If there are only 2 games and you have to get the vets time to practice you're going to see a lot less of the rookies play.

Not that he's making a huge difference but Jonathan Dwyer does not make the team without the last 2 preseason games. Possibly Butler either. And the final linemen decision may have come down to those last 2 games.

As a fan I hate this decision.

:Agree

Does a Willie Parker make the team? How about a Donnie Shell? Yes, I'm sure that if it is implemented we will get used to it but that doesn't make it better.

And if either did not make the team you never would of heard of them and wouldn't had cared. Someone else would had made the team and may had been as good or better or more of a fan favorite.

It like if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it. Now we are getting philisophical!!!!!

steelblood
09-28-2010, 10:40 AM
Hang on- before we all talk 'doom & gloom'- doesn't a longer season put more money in both the Team Owners & the Players hands?

Isn't this what both sides have been wanting during the contract talks?

It's not making 'the playing season' longer, really- it's shortening the meaningless games in pre-season- where players HAVE been getting hurt. It's not like pre-season protects a players health.

If this is a genuine option as a solution to avoiding a non-playing year- sign Chadman up in support.

Maybe if the League offers an extra 2 roster spots to help deal with 'the wear & tear' on players?

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. This is all about the money and once the players see they get more compensation in one form or another they will quit reciting the unions negotiating talking points, take the money and run.

Keep in mind that this is not "oppressive" billionaire owners forcing something on "poor" millionaire players. This is about the "goose that lays the golden eggs" otherwise known as TV contracts. The brfoadcasters have maxed out their revenue streams in the form of advertisers for a 16 game season. The only way to get more is more games. That is what this is about.

If you really want to see a bad situation watch what would happen without 18 games when the next TV contracts come up for renewal and there is less dollars. Everyone would lose then--players and owners.


I think you may be right. But, we should still consider send a message that a work stoppage won't be tolerated.

I hate the 18 game schedule, but it may be the only way to solve this thing.

BradshawsHairdresser
09-28-2010, 11:46 AM
One good outcome is that message board rangers like us will have less time in the preseason to fall in love with preseason illusions like Dennis Dixon and other future FedEx drivers who we swear are better than anyone on the rosters.

And the Steelers (who have been good at picking up talent that others have passed over) will be a lot less likely to come up with gems like Donnie Shell and James Harrison, both undrafted players who helped us win Super Bowls.

I understand that you despise the idea of giving of undrafted players a decent chance. I've not forgotten how you had consigned players like Doug Legursky and Isaac Redman to something like a "FedEx future"...turned out they were not "preseason illusions" but real contributors who are helping this team. But I wonder how much of a chance they would have had without preseason games?

NJ-STEELER
09-28-2010, 05:09 PM
weren't 12 teams each year already playing more then 16 games with the playoffs?


no big deal...the more football the better, WTF do you want to do...watch baseball instead

Sugar
09-28-2010, 05:43 PM
This is such a bad bad idea.

The schedule will be watered down. Games become slightly less important.

More importantly, the extra wear-and-tear on the players will considerably shorten their careers and may even have life-long effects on them.

I don't like this at all.

This= $$$

I hope the players fight this big time. Of course, I'm one who would actually shorten the season by a game or two.

Chadman
09-28-2010, 06:17 PM
Agree NJ- more football is better.

What are we talking about here? 18 games if you don't make the play-offs. So, for a season, 18 hours of football. Well, half of that- 9 hours of football.

We are asking our professional footballers to pony up an extra couple of hours of football a season?

And what's with this 'watered down competition' stuff? The qualifications to get into the playoffs will be the same- best record gets you in. It's not like teams will 'take it easy' because there are 2 extra games- no more than they already do at seasons end.

18 games for professional athletes is not too much to ask. Not if it gets them compensated like they want, while not taking extra cash out of the owners hands.

Heck- Rugby League over here has 26 rounds before the finals. Less padding. 80 minute games. No offensive & defensive substitutions. And the maximum they get paid is around $400 000 a year. And they are professionals- no work outside of football.

Time for the high priced athletes to do their bit- if they want more pay- more work is required.

Chadman
09-28-2010, 06:22 PM
And as for the argument that more Willie Parker's, Doug Legursky's etc will slip through the cracks- here's Chadman's reply- SCOUT BETTER.

Besides, if some of you guys are right- the extra 15-25 touches a season per player will result in multiple injuries- giving these undrafted guys plenty of opportunity to get a shot. :D :stirpot

Chadman would propose this- 2 extra active roster spots per team, 2 extra PS spots per team- that should give teams plenty of opportunity to find 'hidden gems'.

Sugar
09-28-2010, 06:34 PM
Agree NJ- more football is better.
18 games for professional athletes is not too much to ask. Not if it gets them compensated like they want, while not taking extra cash out of the owners hands.

Heck- Rugby League over here has 26 rounds before the finals. Less padding. 80 minute games. No offensive & defensive substitutions. And the maximum they get paid is around $400 000 a year. And they are professionals- no work outside of football.

Time for the high priced athletes to do their bit- if they want more pay- more work is required.

I gotta disagree here. These aren't like rugby players, they are simply a much higher form of athlete, IMO (though I would love to see what kind of numbers a rugby player would be able to put up at the combine). The toll that the game takes on these players is bad, really bad, even now. When you see some of what many of these guys have to do to just get up in the morning and function it's pretty stunning.

NJ-STEELER
09-28-2010, 06:38 PM
the rosters are likely to get expanded...so, we'll probably see more of these undrafted guys making the squad

i'm hoping they add another buy week as well. injuries worries will go down and another week of the football season :Cheers

sd steel
09-28-2010, 06:41 PM
The more I have thought about it the more sense it makes. I watch all the preseason games anyways, why not make them count for something? As far as the undrafted guys who ultimately make the team, they normally aren't making the team on the merit of their preseason game performance. The make the team in training camp. Fans finally get to see them in the preseason, but most personnel decisions aren't based on having a good performance against the 4th dtring of the detroit lions.

More money, more football is good.

Chadman
09-28-2010, 07:40 PM
Agree NJ- more football is better.
18 games for professional athletes is not too much to ask. Not if it gets them compensated like they want, while not taking extra cash out of the owners hands.

Heck- Rugby League over here has 26 rounds before the finals. Less padding. 80 minute games. No offensive & defensive substitutions. And the maximum they get paid is around $400 000 a year. And they are professionals- no work outside of football.

Time for the high priced athletes to do their bit- if they want more pay- more work is required.

I gotta disagree here. These aren't like rugby players, they are simply a much higher form of athlete, IMO (though I would love to see what kind of numbers a rugby player would be able to put up at the combine). The toll that the game takes on these players is bad, really bad, even now. When you see some of what many of these guys have to do to just get up in the morning and function it's pretty stunning.

Regardless of who is the 'greater athlete'- the point was that for the money we expect them to perform, as professionals, for 26 rounds. Now they are pais less than the MINIMUM paid to an NFL player, and we can't expect an extra 2 hours of actual game time out of them a year? Even if it meands more money in their pocket?

Chadman
09-28-2010, 07:45 PM
And Sugar- Rugby Leage or AFL guys in Australia are the 'elite' football athletes over here. It's reasonable to expect that the injury concerns, regardless of their 'abilities', will equal out to about the same.

Just watched a team play it's semi-final over here with 1 guy playing 2 weeks back from being diagnosed with a broken jaw (no helmets here), 1 guy playing with a tear in is 'miniscus' ligament (think that's how you spell it), 1 guy had 17 stitches above his eye- played with the equivelent of a bandaid to cover his stitches. These guys play with injuries. Injuries are part of sport.

As professionals, they should know & accept the risks involved.

When was the last time an NFL player played with a broken jaw? Could we even expect one to?

Chadman
09-28-2010, 07:48 PM
To give some indication of the punishment these League guys go through- enjoy this..put em in pads & compare...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ILh-w5LPYo

Sugar
09-28-2010, 08:57 PM
It's not just the games, it's practice as well. I'd feel a lot better about it if the players were allowed to treat these things with better chemistry, but heaven forbid we allow anything that resembles a PED in this league.

The money doesn't matter when your body is on the line. These guys aren't paid because of the punishment to their bodies. They are paid because of the laws of supply and demand. They are in short supply and we have a demand to watch them. :tt2

Chadman
09-28-2010, 09:03 PM
True Sug, very true.

And the market dictates the price. But the owners also dictate the supply- if they simply refuse to pay more for the athletes, not only do the athletes not get what they want- neither do the fans.

Negotiation is about give & take. If the players want more- they gotta give in some areas too.

Is it really that much to ask for them to give 2 more weeks for the money they command?

Sugar
09-28-2010, 09:09 PM
True Sug, very true.

And the market dictates the price. But the owners also dictate the supply- if they simply refuse to pay more for the athletes, not only do the athletes not get what they want- neither do the fans.

Negotiation is about give & take. If the players want more- they gotta give in some areas too.

Is it really that much to ask for them to give 2 more weeks for the money they command?

I think so. Of course, I think they already play too many games as it is.

Of course, my opinion is that the whole 18 game schedule was brought to bear for the sole reason of making an artificial bargaining chip to the NFLPA.

papillon
09-28-2010, 09:14 PM
I don'[t like the idea and here are my reasons:

You can't compare the intensity of two regular season games to pre-season games; more players will be injured

Adding players to a roster to accommodate the added games dilutes the talent and by default the product on the field

It will be impossible to evaluate the talent you draft in two pre-season games

The draft will likely be reduced to 5 rounds at some point

Each game will be devalued in the overall standings; part of the allure of the NFL season is that each game is vital to a teams success or failure and thus provides for an intense battle.

I'm sure there's more...

Pappy

Chadman
09-28-2010, 09:33 PM
Pap-

1. Players get hurt in Training Camp. They get hurt in pre-season games. And they get hurt during the season. it's part of the deal. If the season is brought forward 2 weeks, isn't it possible that training sessions & Training Camp can be brought forward too, to help get players bodies ready for the season? You can't say that pre-season games are for getting players 'match fit', simply because the starters play so little during the course of 4 games.

2. Diluted talent? Not really. Pretty sure, if you go back over the last few cuts, you'll find 4-5 players we all argued over the merits of them making the team.

3. Impossible? No. More difficult? Probably. Maybe it will just mean that teams need to research the players they add to their roster a little more thoroughly. But if you add an extra spot or 2 to the playing roster- you also counter-act possibly giving up on a couple of players too early.

4. Where did you read the draft being reduced to 5 rounds? That being said, it doesn't stop teams evaluating players that would normally fall into rounds 6 & 7 & then picking them up as UDFA's.

5. This point confuses Chadman (not hard to do). Surely the importance of winning more games than your opponants is just as important if you play 10, 16 or 18 games?

pepsyman1
09-28-2010, 09:55 PM
I will join the club on this one agree with all who thinks this sucks. I don't want to watch NFL regular season games in August or the Superbowl being played near the beginning of March. The quality of the game (which is the scam with which Goodell started selling this idea with) will end up going down. Top line players are going to get hurt even more often than they already do, rosters will have to be expanded and we will end up with a watered down game.

papillon
09-29-2010, 12:07 AM
Pap-

1. Players get hurt in Training Camp. They get hurt in pre-season games. And they get hurt during the season. it's part of the deal. If the season is brought forward 2 weeks, isn't it possible that training sessions & Training Camp can be brought forward too, to help get players bodies ready for the season? You can't say that pre-season games are for getting players 'match fit', simply because the starters play so little during the course of 4 games.

Players train year round as it is; their bodies need time to recover, football at the NFL level is a violent collision sport. Their bodies are bangfed up and bruised and need to heal. I realize players get hurt all year long; it is my opinion more will get hurt during a high intensity football game rather than in TC or PS games. I'm saying PS games are for evaluating the marginal talent, not getting match fit, any football player wanting to compete is match fit year round.

2. Diluted talent? Not really. Pretty sure, if you go back over the last few cuts, you'll find 4-5 players we all argued over the merits of them making the team.

It only makes sense that if you keep more players the talent gets diluted, see baseball as it expanded needlessly. Two players, 32 teams, that's like adding one new football team to the league. Do you think the talent level would diminish or grow in that scenario?

3. Impossible? No. More difficult? Probably. Maybe it will just mean that teams need to research the players they add to their roster a little more thoroughly. But if you add an extra spot or 2 to the playing roster- you also counter-act possibly giving up on a couple of players too early.

Teams are already evaluating players year round and miss, giving them 2 less games to see game speed action will only make it more difficult to evaluate the talent at the bottom of the roster. There will be more mistakes made, not fewer.

4. Where did you read the draft being reduced to 5 rounds? That being said, it doesn't stop teams evaluating players that would normally fall into rounds 6 & 7 & then picking them up as UDFA's.

I didn't, it was a bad thought, actually, the draft would probably have to be expanded to accommodate more players.

5. This point confuses Chadman (not hard to do). Surely the importance of winning more games than your opponants is just as important if you play 10, 16 or 18 games?

Nope, 1/16 of a schedule carries more weight than 1/18 of a schedule. Look at baseball, who cares about baseball in April, there are 162 games, people care about football from the first game to the last, because each game is very important. Losing one football game is like losing 10 baseball games in a row. It's difficult to rebound from that; it's that value that causes the players to play with the intensity that you see every Sunday. If they played 30 games, the intensity would go down, if they played 50 games it would go down even more, the same with 18, the intensity will go down some, maybe, not much, but it will.



There will also be more meaningless games at the end of the year, since, more teams will be eliminated earlier and more teams resting starters preparing for the playoffs. I just don't see the upside to expanding the schedule. Personally, I'd like to see them reduce it by a game or two and expand the playoffs. There's noting like playoff football.

Pappy

NJ-STEELER
09-29-2010, 01:03 AM
Pap-

1. Players get hurt in Training Camp. They get hurt in pre-season games. And they get hurt during the season. it's part of the deal. If the season is brought forward 2 weeks, isn't it possible that training sessions & Training Camp can be brought forward too, to help get players bodies ready for the season? You can't say that pre-season games are for getting players 'match fit', simply because the starters play so little during the course of 4 games.

Players train year round as it is; their bodies need time to recover, football at the NFL level is a violent collision sport. Their bodies are bangfed up and bruised and need to heal. I realize players get hurt all year long; it is my opinion more will get hurt during a high intensity football game rather than in TC or PS games. I'm saying PS games are for evaluating the marginal talent, not getting match fit, any football player wanting to compete is match fit year round.

2. Diluted talent? Not really. Pretty sure, if you go back over the last few cuts, you'll find 4-5 players we all argued over the merits of them making the team.

It only makes sense that if you keep more players the talent gets diluted, see baseball as it expanded needlessly. Two players, 32 teams, that's like adding one new football team to the league. Do you think the talent level would diminish or grow in that scenario?

3. Impossible? No. More difficult? Probably. Maybe it will just mean that teams need to research the players they add to their roster a little more thoroughly. But if you add an extra spot or 2 to the playing roster- you also counter-act possibly giving up on a couple of players too early.

Teams are already evaluating players year round and miss, giving them 2 less games to see game speed action will only make it more difficult to evaluate the talent at the bottom of the roster. There will be more mistakes made, not fewer.

4. Where did you read the draft being reduced to 5 rounds? That being said, it doesn't stop teams evaluating players that would normally fall into rounds 6 & 7 & then picking them up as UDFA's.

I didn't, it was a bad thought, actually, the draft would probably have to be expanded to accommodate more players.

5. This point confuses Chadman (not hard to do). Surely the importance of winning more games than your opponants is just as important if you play 10, 16 or 18 games?

Nope, 1/16 of a schedule carries more weight than 1/18 of a schedule. Look at baseball, who cares about baseball in April, there are 162 games, people care about football from the first game to the last, because each game is very important. Losing one football game is like losing 10 baseball games in a row. It's difficult to rebound from that; it's that value that causes the players to play with the intensity that you see every Sunday. If they played 30 games, the intensity would go down, if they played 50 games it would go down even more, the same with 18, the intensity will go down some, maybe, not much, but it will.



There will also be more meaningless games at the end of the year, since, more teams will be eliminated earlier and more teams resting starters preparing for the playoffs. I just don't see the upside to expanding the schedule. Personally, I'd like to see them reduce it by a game or two and expand the playoffs. There's noting like playoff football.

Pappy


that could happen as well as creating more excitement with more teams being in it.

just look at last year with us a game back, the texans a game back and the jets backing into the playoffs.

2 more games makes would have been exciting for those teams

Vindrow
09-29-2010, 01:20 AM
I believe a couple of people asked if the players have any say in this...the answer would be no they dont...its says right in this article:(the bolded part)


WASHINGTON (AP)—The NFL and its players’ union discussed a proposal to change to an 18-game regular season during a bargaining session Tuesday.

The league and the NFL Players Association issued a joint statement about the meeting, saying that negotiations “focused on several matters,” including the longer regular season, a rookie wage scale and improvements for retired players.

“Both sides look forward to continuing these discussions and reaching a new collective bargaining agreement,” the statement said.

Tuesday’s talks took place in Washington, where the NFLPA has its headquarters.

The current collective bargaining agreement expires in March, and NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith has said he believes owners are preparing for a lockout.

League owners and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell want to expand the regular season from 16 games to 18, and cut the preseason from four games to two. Indianapolis Colts President Bill Polian said Monday he thinks such a switch is a “fait accompli;” the union has not said it wants to make a change.

Goodell has pointed out that the league does not need approval from the players in order to extend the regular season.

The players currently get 59.6 percent of designated NFL revenues, a number agreed to in the 2006 CBA. The owners say that’s too much, arguing that they have huge debts from building stadiums and starting up the NFL Network and other ventures, making it impossible to be profitable.

The NFL generates nearly $8 billion in revenues annually, with about $1 billion going to operating expenses. The owners get about 40 percent of the rest, but they want about $1.3 billion more before the players get their cut, and they’d like two more regular-season games to get more money out of the networks for everyone.

Players have said they won’t agree to a new deal that amounts to a pay cut. Smith has been warning players since he took office in early 2009 to put aside money in case of a work stoppage.

The union has started the process of having players vote to decertify the union, a step that eventually would allow players to sue the NFL if the owners decide to impose a lockout.

The NFLPA was decertified in 1989, two years after a failed players’ strike. It returned as a union in 1993, when a contract was reached with the league that provided for free agency. That landmark CBA was renewed or restructured several times since 1993, including in 2006. The owners opted out of that deal two years ago.



The simple fact is this is going to happen whether people like it or not..it's the only way that a new CBA will get done, so we may as well get used to an 18 game season.

Oviedo
09-29-2010, 08:11 AM
One good outcome is that message board rangers like us will have less time in the preseason to fall in love with preseason illusions like Dennis Dixon and other future FedEx drivers who we swear are better than anyone on the rosters.

And the Steelers (who have been good at picking up talent that others have passed over) will be a lot less likely to come up with gems like Donnie Shell and James Harrison, both undrafted players who helped us win Super Bowls.

I understand that you despise the idea of giving of undrafted players a decent chance. I've not forgotten how you had consigned players like Doug Legursky and Isaac Redman to something like a "FedEx future"...turned out they were not "preseason illusions" but real contributors who are helping this team. But I wonder how much of a chance they would have had without preseason games?

On this subject and my opinions you continue to have no idea what you are talking about.

If you actually rread what I have said on the subject of 18 games I have strongly advocated larger rosters and a larger practice squad where these types of players would get a chance to develop.

But if you need a bone to chew on go ahead and keep chewing on this one.

Everyone can keep bemoaning the 18 game schedule but THEY DON'T CARE WHAT WE THINK!!!! Time to wake up. Fans buying tickets are not their biggest source of revenue. The biggest source of revenue is the TV contracts. That is who they have to do 18 games for and both the owners and the player know that which is why there will be 18 games. It's a done deal and all they are talking about is what the players get to go to 18 games. Accept it and move on.

bostonsteeler
09-29-2010, 09:20 AM
I wouldn't put down the rugby league.
Have you watched them play? They're amazing athletes, all of them. Every bit as athletic as NFL players, possibly more since they have to carry muscle mass and cannot rely on 100lbs of lard around the belly.

The reason they get hurt less is the nature of the game --by eliminating all the padding, the game essentially ensures that players make less violent contact than in the NFL.

Oviedo
09-29-2010, 09:49 AM
I wouldn't put down the rugby league.
Have you watched them play? They're amazing athletes, all of them. Every bit as athletic as NFL players, possibly more since they have to carry muscle mass and cannot rely on 100lbs of lard around the belly.

The reason they get hurt less is the nature of the game --by eliminating all the padding, the game essentially ensures that players make less violent contact than in the NFL.

Since I played rugby in college I have to agree that they are amazing athletes and true demi-gods :wink:

grotonsteel
09-29-2010, 11:52 AM
IMO 18 games won't work unless all teams are competitive and playoff spots are not decided till the last game.There will be more and more blackouts in 18 game season.

If NFL starts distributing talent evenly...or start fixing games for perenniel losers..there will be no buyers for these teams. Why would TV channels pay money for 0 viewership??

Do these owner think that people will watch games which has 1-15 or 3-13 team??? Or the two teams which have already made playoff playing their backups in 17th game?


Economics 101: Supply and Demand
I won't be surprised if government has to bailout NFL...Learn from real estate markets..

Will i watch Steelers team for 18 games...hell yes...but every team in NFL is not Steelers and every team in NFL does not have a fan base of Steelers.

Preseason works because every team is 0-0 at that moment.

Oviedo
09-29-2010, 12:40 PM
IMO 18 games won't work unless all teams are competitive and playoff spots are not decided till the last game.There will be more and more blackouts in 18 game season.

If NFL starts distributing talent evenly...or start fixing games for perenniel losers..there will be no buyers for these teams. Why would TV channels pay money for 0 viewership??

Do these owner think that people will watch games which has 1-15 or 3-13 team??? Or the two teams which have already made playoff playing their backups in 17th game?


Economics 101: Supply and Demand
I won't be surprised if government has to bailout NFL...Learn from real estate markets..

Will i watch Steelers team for 18 games...hell yes...but every team in NFL is not Steelers and every team in NFL does not have a fan base of Steelers.

Preseason works because every team is 0-0 at that moment.

Set up the schedule so two of your last three games are against division foes. In most cases that will force teams to keep it honest because of the tiebreaker formula. Of course there will be exceptions but we saw teams coasting into the play offs when we had 14 game seasons and 16 game seasons.

The only way to ratchet up the pressure is to take away wildcard teams and force teams to win their divisions. That ain't happening

phillyesq
09-29-2010, 01:07 PM
I agree with a lot of the rationale here, but one of the main reasons I don't want to see an 18 game schedule is dilution. The NFL is so popular because almost all the games happen on Sunday, and there are a limited number of games. The Thursday night games have started to dilute things a bit already, IMO. Adding two more weeks will only further dilute things.

Oviedo
09-29-2010, 02:12 PM
I agree with a lot of the rationale here, but one of the main reasons I don't want to see an 18 game schedule is dilution. The NFL is so popular because almost all the games happen on Sunday, and there are a limited number of games. The Thursday night games have started to dilute things a bit already, IMO. Adding two more weeks will only further dilute things.

Scheduling a different night doesn't dilute it, it just provides another viewing option. If anything it helps people because they are national broadcasts versus going by stupid Sunday media market and blackout rules.

It is still only 18 games no matter how you distribute them on the schedule.

BradshawsHairdresser
09-29-2010, 02:27 PM
IMO 18 games won't work unless all teams are competitive and playoff spots are not decided till the last game.There will be more and more blackouts in 18 game season.

If NFL starts distributing talent evenly...or start fixing games for perenniel losers..there will be no buyers for these teams. Why would TV channels pay money for 0 viewership??

Do these owner think that people will watch games which has 1-15 or 3-13 team??? Or the two teams which have already made playoff playing their backups in 17th game?


Economics 101: Supply and Demand
I won't be surprised if government has to bailout NFL...Learn from real estate markets..

Will i watch Steelers team for 18 games...hell yes...but every team in NFL is not Steelers and every team in NFL does not have a fan base of Steelers.

Preseason works because every team is 0-0 at that moment.



I agree with a lot of the rationale here, but one of the main reasons I don't want to see an 18 game schedule is dilution. The NFL is so popular because almost all the games happen on Sunday, and there are a limited number of games. The Thursday night games have started to dilute things a bit already, IMO. Adding two more weeks will only further dilute things.

$$$$

The more regular-season games you have, the less each of those games means.
That's one reason people don't get all that excited about individual MLB or NBA games.
If the NFL goes too far down this road, it may end up cutting its own throat.

feltdizz
09-29-2010, 02:50 PM
we went from 14 to 16 and the league grew. I don't think it will hurt the NFL experience at all.

I love the Thursday night games because it gives fans another chance to watch their team in prime time.

Maybe it will hurt ticket sales for bad teams but season ticket holders complain about preseason tickets so much it may increase viewership

Oviedo
09-29-2010, 03:05 PM
we went from 14 to 16 and the league grew. I don't think it will hurt the NFL experience at all.

I love the Thursday night games because it gives fans another chance to watch their team in prime time.

Maybe it will hurt ticket sales for bad teams but season ticket holders complain about preseason tickets so much it may increase viewership

:Agree :Agree :Agree

hawaiiansteel
09-29-2010, 03:07 PM
Updated: September 29, 2010

Bill Polian 'very imprecise' on schedule

ESPN.com news services


INDIANAPOLIS -- Colts president Bill Polian says he was "very imprecise" when he described an 18-game schedule as a done deal.

Two days after saying a longer schedule is a "fait accompli" on his local radio show, Polian returned to the airways Wednesday and told ESPN's "Mike and Mike In The Morning" program what he meant was that the Colts are preparing as if the 18-game season is going to happen.

Indianapolis Colts president Bill Polian says an 18-game schedule is not a foregone conclusion in the NFL. It will be subject to lengthy discussion and detail with the NFLPA and then subject to a vote of ownership.

On Tuesday, NFL Players Association representatives and league officials met in Washington to discuss a new collective bargaining agreement. The expanded season was one of the topics.

Polian explained that the competition committee, which he serves on, is still discussing how to make it work. A proposal would still have to be discussed with the union and approved by league owners.

"I created a headline that was 180 degrees from what was right," Polian said. "Bad job by me in answering the question."

NFLPA president Kevin Mawae took offense to Polian's original comments.

"My knee-jerk reaction is that I didn't know [Polian] had the authority to make announcements on his own,'' Mawae told The Boston Globe in a telephone interview. "But the way I understand it -- and I had meetings all day -- he said he wasn't in favor of it."

Mawae told the newspaper that adding two more regular-season games is a huge sticking point with the players.

"From a players' perspective, this is not a done deal," Mawae told The Globe. "We spent three hours in the bargaining session talking about this and, as players, the thing that concerns us the most is the toll this will take on a player's body. Look at someone like me, a 16-year vet -- that'd be 32 more games.

"Of all the things we're trying to sell to other players, the 18-game season is the hardest thing to sell."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5629713

Oviedo
09-29-2010, 03:30 PM
Updated: September 29, 2010

Bill Polian 'very imprecise' on schedule

ESPN.com news services


INDIANAPOLIS -- Colts president Bill Polian says he was "very imprecise" when he described an 18-game schedule as a done deal.

Two days after saying a longer schedule is a "fait accompli" on his local radio show, Polian returned to the airways Wednesday and told ESPN's "Mike and Mike In The Morning" program what he meant was that the Colts are preparing as if the 18-game season is going to happen.

Indianapolis Colts president Bill Polian says an 18-game schedule is not a foregone conclusion in the NFL. It will be subject to lengthy discussion and detail with the NFLPA and then subject to a vote of ownership.

On Tuesday, NFL Players Association representatives and league officials met in Washington to discuss a new collective bargaining agreement. The expanded season was one of the topics.

Polian explained that the competition committee, which he serves on, is still discussing how to make it work. A proposal would still have to be discussed with the union and approved by league owners.

"I created a headline that was 180 degrees from what was right," Polian said. "Bad job by me in answering the question."

NFLPA president Kevin Mawae took offense to Polian's original comments.

"My knee-jerk reaction is that I didn't know [Polian] had the authority to make announcements on his own,'' Mawae told The Boston Globe in a telephone interview. "But the way I understand it -- and I had meetings all day -- he said he wasn't in favor of it."

Mawae told the newspaper that adding two more regular-season games is a huge sticking point with the players.

"From a players' perspective, this is not a done deal," Mawae told The Globe. "We spent three hours in the bargaining session talking about this and, as players, the thing that concerns us the most is the toll this will take on a player's body. Look at someone like me, a 16-year vet -- that'd be 32 more games.

"Of all the things we're trying to sell to other players, the 18-game season is the hardest thing to sell."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5629713

Mawae is just reciting the union's talking points for public consumption to lay out a negotiating position. Since they haven't been given anything they will continue to play this in the press until they get something.

SteelAbility
09-29-2010, 04:29 PM
There are a couple of problems with the "[we upped by two games] and the league grew" position.

1. Where does it stop? By the same argument we could go from 18-20, 20-22, on and on. There is a lot of history and data now on the 16-game season and it looks very much like 16 games hits the "sweet spot" that strikes the balance between ...

a. meaningful games
b. not watering down the schedule
c. injuries


2. The players are bigger/faster/stronger now than when we went from 14-16. The hits are much harder and the physical demands of the game are much higher than they they were then. As an example, I lift weights and have bulked up now to about 230 pounds. Even though I have more size and muscle to lift heavier now, the toll of the workouts at my new weight exceed the toll at 200 pounds, even on a "pound for pound" basis.

feltdizz
09-29-2010, 04:53 PM
There are a couple of problems with the "[we upped by two games] and the league grew" position.

1. Where does it stop? By the same argument we could go from 18-20, 20-22, on and on. There is a lot of history and data now on the 16-game season and it looks very much like 16 games hits the "sweet spot" that strikes the balance between ...

a. meaningful games
b. not watering down the schedule
c. injuries


2. The players are bigger/faster/stronger now than when we went from 14-16. The hits are much harder and the physical demands of the game are much higher than they they were then. As an example, I lift weights and have bulked up now to about 230 pounds. Even though I have more size and muscle to lift heavier now, the toll of the workouts at my new weight exceed the toll at 200 pounds, even on a "pound for pound" basis.

16 games hit the sweet spot because it has been in place for 30 years.

It won't jump from 18 to 20 games for another 30 years.

Teams have moved, new teams have been added and we always hear the same thing..."It will ruin the game"

There is no such thing as too much football.

Oviedo
09-29-2010, 05:05 PM
There are a couple of problems with the "[we upped by two games] and the league grew" position.

1. Where does it stop? By the same argument we could go from 18-20, 20-22, on and on. There is a lot of history and data now on the 16-game season and it looks very much like 16 games hits the "sweet spot" that strikes the balance between ...

a. meaningful games
b. not watering down the schedule
c. injuries


2. The players are bigger/faster/stronger now than when we went from 14-16. The hits are much harder and the physical demands of the game are much higher than they they were then. As an example, I lift weights and have bulked up now to about 230 pounds. Even though I have more size and muscle to lift heavier now, the toll of the workouts at my new weight exceed the toll at 200 pounds, even on a "pound for pound" basis.

You mitigate that by allowing teams to carry more players and have more players on gameday. This allows you to liberally sub like we have done last two games on the OL. If you can carry an extra RB that also means you number 1 gets more breathers and his 300 carries per season vcan be spread over 18 games versus the current 16.

I don't buy the injury argument. They can occur anytime. Troy got hurt in game 1 last year. Should we have a zero game season? Some players played the entire season last year without injuries that forced them to miss a single game.

If rosters are expanded this will mitigate the injury concerns. That also equals more dues paying union members which is why the union will eventually say OK.

phillyesq
09-29-2010, 05:13 PM
There are a couple of problems with the "[we upped by two games] and the league grew" position.

1. Where does it stop? By the same argument we could go from 18-20, 20-22, on and on. There is a lot of history and data now on the 16-game season and it looks very much like 16 games hits the "sweet spot" that strikes the balance between ...

a. meaningful games
b. not watering down the schedule
c. injuries


2. The players are bigger/faster/stronger now than when we went from 14-16. The hits are much harder and the physical demands of the game are much higher than they they were then. As an example, I lift weights and have bulked up now to about 230 pounds. Even though I have more size and muscle to lift heavier now, the toll of the workouts at my new weight exceed the toll at 200 pounds, even on a "pound for pound" basis.

You mitigate that by allowing teams to carry more players and have more players on gameday. This allows you to liberally sub like we have done last two games on the OL. If you can carry an extra RB that also means you number 1 gets more breathers and his 300 carries per season vcan be spread over 18 games versus the current 16.

I don't buy the injury argument. They can occur anytime. Troy got hurt in game 1 last year. Should we have a zero game season? Some players played the entire season last year without injuries that forced them to miss a single game.

If rosters are expanded this will mitigate the injury concerns. That also equals more dues paying union members which is why the union will eventually say OK.

Expanded rosters allow you to sub more liberally, but it also means that you spend more time watching people who aren't as good.

For those of us who post on message boards, we absolutely want to see how Worilds is going to perform when he gets an opportunity. For the casual fan, it's about star power.

They want to watch Chris Johnson, not Samkon Gado (or whoever his backup is).

If the NFL goes to 18 games, I'll embrace it, but ultimately, I think it will hurt the quality of the game and the brand.

grotonsteel
09-29-2010, 09:12 PM
Well 18 games is not a done deal...Looks like Polian has a big mouth

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=A ... lts-polian (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AoHkWXcGu8ob1KVBT5HTkopDubYF?slug=ap-colts-polian)

INDIANAPOLIS (AP)—Colts President Bill Polian says he was “very imprecise” when he described an 18-game schedule as a done deal.

Two days after saying a longer schedule is a “fait accompli” on his local radio show, Polian returned to the airways Wednesday and told ESPN’s “Mike and Mike In The Morning” program what he meant was that the Colts are preparing as if the 18-game season is going to happen.

On Tuesday, NFL Players Association representatives and league officials met in Washington to discuss a new collective bargaining agreement. The expanded season was one of the topics.

Polian explained that the competition committee, which he serves on, is still discussing how to make it work. A proposal would still have to be discussed with the union and approved by league owners.

grotonsteel
09-29-2010, 09:18 PM
There are a couple of problems with the "[we upped by two games] and the league grew" position.

1. Where does it stop? By the same argument we could go from 18-20, 20-22, on and on. There is a lot of history and data now on the 16-game season and it looks very much like 16 games hits the "sweet spot" that strikes the balance between ...

a. meaningful games
b. not watering down the schedule
c. injuries


2. The players are bigger/faster/stronger now than when we went from 14-16. The hits are much harder and the physical demands of the game are much higher than they they were then. As an example, I lift weights and have bulked up now to about 230 pounds. Even though I have more size and muscle to lift heavier now, the toll of the workouts at my new weight exceed the toll at 200 pounds, even on a "pound for pound" basis.


There is no such thing as too much football.


Hmm..there is too much football when your team is 1-15/0-16.

grotonsteel
09-29-2010, 09:28 PM
There are a couple of problems with the "[we upped by two games] and the league grew" position.

1. Where does it stop? By the same argument we could go from 18-20, 20-22, on and on. There is a lot of history and data now on the 16-game season and it looks very much like 16 games hits the "sweet spot" that strikes the balance between ...

a. meaningful games
b. not watering down the schedule
c. injuries


2. The players are bigger/faster/stronger now than when we went from 14-16. The hits are much harder and the physical demands of the game are much higher than they they were then. As an example, I lift weights and have bulked up now to about 230 pounds. Even though I have more size and muscle to lift heavier now, the toll of the workouts at my new weight exceed the toll at 200 pounds, even on a "pound for pound" basis.

You mitigate that by allowing teams to carry more players and have more players on gameday. This allows you to liberally sub like we have done last two games on the OL. If you can carry an extra RB that also means you number 1 gets more breathers and his 300 carries per season vcan be spread over 18 games versus the current 16.

I don't buy the injury argument. They can occur anytime. Troy got hurt in game 1 last year. Should we have a zero game season? Some players played the entire season last year without injuries that forced them to miss a single game.

If rosters are expanded this will mitigate the injury concerns. That also equals more dues paying union members which is why the union will eventually say OK.

Expanded rosters allow you to sub more liberally, but it also means that you spend more time watching people who aren't as good.

For those of us who post on message boards, we absolutely want to see how Worilds is going to perform when he gets an opportunity. For the casual fan, it's about star power.

They want to watch Chris Johnson, not Samkon Gado (or whoever his backup is).

If the NFL goes to 18 games, I'll embrace it, but ultimately, I think it will hurt the quality of the game and the brand.


:Agree

As i said before if it is Steelers i will pay even to watch Practice Squad guys play.

But i ain't wasting my time to watch some horrible team like last season's Rams/Bucs/Lions who were nowhere in contention for playoffs.

18 game season is pure greed. Just watch how many games are played outside US.

Don't be surprised if you see SB being played in London. Its all about money with the owners and Goodell

Gordon Gekko said "GREED IS GOOD"

NJ-STEELER
09-30-2010, 02:46 AM
the players want a bigger piece of the pie. the owners want less money allocated to the players.

would you rather see no football with a strike or an 18 game season?

California-Steel
09-30-2010, 03:09 AM
18 games today 162 games tomorrow. Can't let baseball have more games than football now can we.

I can see it now. 700 man rosters. 50 coaches (most just watching film and then printing out a computer generated game plan for the head coach to follow everyday). Heck that mean even some of us will be on teams. QB's on rotations and 4th quarter QB closers. "Hey coach Ben's pass count is up to 50 attempts, call up the bull pen" This is great news!!! :roll:

stlrz d
09-30-2010, 07:59 AM
the players want a bigger piece of the pie. the owners want less money allocated to the players.

would you rather see no football with a strike or an 18 game season?

Actually what the players want is the same piece of the pie they have. The owners want them to have a smaller one.

18 games is a horrible idea.

Ghost
09-30-2010, 09:09 AM
Listening to the local sports talk this morning and one of the guys said he'd been talking to a player and the gist of the conversation was this - "the players don't like the idea of an 18 game season and will fight it - if it's played under status quo (same salaries and no additional roster spots). But the player also said there is most definitely a 'price' that the players will agree to. Evertying can be had for a certain price." Didn't elaborate on what it was but the thought was the Uinion already had those numbers in mind in order to discuss and make this happen.

Oviedo
09-30-2010, 09:21 AM
Listening to the local sports talk this morning and one of the guys said he'd been talking to a player and the gist of the conversation was this - "the players don't like the idea of an 18 game season and will fight it - if it's played under status quo (same salaries and no additional roster spots). But the player also said there is most definitely a 'price' that the players will agree to. Evertying can be had for a certain price." Didn't elaborate on what it was but the thought was the Uinion already had those numbers in mind in order to discuss and make this happen.

Like I have said all along it will be amazing how the players worries miraculously go away when they get something. All their whining is union issued talking points. Listen to all the people complaining publically. They say what they almost exactly word for word. The union is just staking out a negotiating position but when they see the money they will take it and run.

Expand rosters to create more dues paying members and the union will be perfectly happy and 18 games will become very agreeable.

NWNewell
09-30-2010, 10:23 AM
Each game will be devalued in the overall standings; part of the allure of the NFL season is that each game is vital to a teams success or failure and thus provides for an intense battle.

Pappy

This is my biggest concern as well.

SteelTorch
09-30-2010, 10:29 AM
Each game will be devalued in the overall standings; part of the allure of the NFL season is that each game is vital to a teams success or failure and thus provides for an intense battle.

Pappy

This is my biggest concern as well.
Also, a longer schedule will take a bigger toll on the players' bodies. This could lead to either a higher rate of injury, or the league will crack down on hard hits even more, thus reducing the intensity of the game.

Or both.

This is just more proof that the higher-ups care more about money than the feelings and wellbeing of the players.

Oviedo
09-30-2010, 10:58 AM
Each game will be devalued in the overall standings; part of the allure of the NFL season is that each game is vital to a teams success or failure and thus provides for an intense battle.

Pappy

This is my biggest concern as well.
Also, a longer schedule will take a bigger toll on the players' bodies. This could lead to either a higher rate of injury, or the league will crack down on hard hits even more, thus reducing the intensity of the game.

Or both.

This is just more proof that the higher-ups care more about money than the feelings and wellbeing of the players.

The evil, exploiting "higher ups" can't do 18 games without the agreement of the poor oppressed players and their poor "feelings and well being." See how fast the players themselves stop caring abouth their feeling and well being when dollars arer waved in front of them.

phillyesq
09-30-2010, 11:02 AM
The evil, exploiting "higher ups" can't do 18 games without the agreement of the poor oppressed players and their poor "feelings and well being." See how fast the players themselves stop caring abouth their feeling and well being when dollars arer waved in front of them.

No question there. If the money is right, the players will quickly forget any health concerns.

SteelAbility
09-30-2010, 12:02 PM
There are a couple of problems with the "[we upped by two games] and the league grew" position.

1. Where does it stop? By the same argument we could go from 18-20, 20-22, on and on. There is a lot of history and data now on the 16-game season and it looks very much like 16 games hits the "sweet spot" that strikes the balance between ...

a. meaningful games
b. not watering down the schedule
c. injuries


2. The players are bigger/faster/stronger now than when we went from 14-16. The hits are much harder and the physical demands of the game are much higher than they they were then. As an example, I lift weights and have bulked up now to about 230 pounds. Even though I have more size and muscle to lift heavier now, the toll of the workouts at my new weight exceed the toll at 200 pounds, even on a "pound for pound" basis.

You mitigate that by allowing teams to carry more players and have more players on gameday. This allows you to liberally sub like we have done last two games on the OL. If you can carry an extra RB that also means you number 1 gets more breathers and his 300 carries per season vcan be spread over 18 games versus the current 16.

I don't buy the injury argument. They can occur anytime. Troy got hurt in game 1 last year. Should we have a zero game season? Some players played the entire season last year without injuries that forced them to miss a single game.

If rosters are expanded this will mitigate the injury concerns. That also equals more dues paying union members which is why the union will eventually say OK.

... and hence watering down the talent pool. So you get to see MORE games of lower cabliber each. I think that SUCKS.

SteelAbility
09-30-2010, 12:11 PM
There are a couple of problems with the "[we upped by two games] and the league grew" position.

1. Where does it stop? By the same argument we could go from 18-20, 20-22, on and on. There is a lot of history and data now on the 16-game season and it looks very much like 16 games hits the "sweet spot" that strikes the balance between ...

a. meaningful games
b. not watering down the schedule
c. injuries


2. The players are bigger/faster/stronger now than when we went from 14-16. The hits are much harder and the physical demands of the game are much higher than they they were then. As an example, I lift weights and have bulked up now to about 230 pounds. Even though I have more size and muscle to lift heavier now, the toll of the workouts at my new weight exceed the toll at 200 pounds, even on a "pound for pound" basis.

16 games hit the sweet spot because it has been in place for 30 years.

It won't jump from 18 to 20 games for another 30 years.

Teams have moved, new teams have been added and we always hear the same thing..."It will ruin the game"

There is no such thing as too much football.

That's true for you. For the guys who are getting beat up weak in and weak out, there is definitely too much football. No matter how you slice it there's a trade off. You want more games? You are going to have to live with lower quality play. You are going to have to live with shorter careers. You are going to have to live with watered down meaning to the games.

The cause and effect of the games and sweet spot you have reversed. 16 games has been in place for 30 years BECAUSE it's the sweet spot. The owners aren't convinced that it's the sweet spot profit-wise. But it is the sweet spot for the 3 categories I gave.

SteelTorch
09-30-2010, 12:27 PM
See how fast the players themselves stop caring abouth their feeling and well being when dollars arer waved in front of them.
Oh yes, because

A) One player speaks for the entire league - even though that player still said they don't like the idea.
B) A player who suffers a severe, life-long injury won't care as long as he has a bigger paycheck.

Tell me, what's the weather like in Oviedo-land? :lol:

feltdizz
09-30-2010, 12:28 PM
There are a couple of problems with the "[we upped by two games] and the league grew" position.

1. Where does it stop? By the same argument we could go from 18-20, 20-22, on and on. There is a lot of history and data now on the 16-game season and it looks very much like 16 games hits the "sweet spot" that strikes the balance between ...

a. meaningful games
b. not watering down the schedule
c. injuries


2. The players are bigger/faster/stronger now than when we went from 14-16. The hits are much harder and the physical demands of the game are much higher than they they were then. As an example, I lift weights and have bulked up now to about 230 pounds. Even though I have more size and muscle to lift heavier now, the toll of the workouts at my new weight exceed the toll at 200 pounds, even on a "pound for pound" basis.

16 games hit the sweet spot because it has been in place for 30 years.

It won't jump from 18 to 20 games for another 30 years.

Teams have moved, new teams have been added and we always hear the same thing..."It will ruin the game"

There is no such thing as too much football.

That's true for you. For the guys who are getting beat up weak in and weak out, there is definitely too much football. No matter how you slice it there's a trade off. You want more games? You are going to have to live with lower quality play. You are going to have to live with shorter careers. You are going to have to live with watered down meaning to the games.

The cause and effect of the games and sweet spot you have reversed. 16 games has been in place for 30 years BECAUSE it's the sweet spot. The owners aren't convinced that it's the sweet spot profit-wise. But it is the sweet spot for the 3 categories I gave.

Players get hurt on one play... it's not like 2 games magically increases the injuries. There is no way to tally up injuries based on games played. Lefty went down in preseason, Dixon went out on a play with no contact.

Using the injury theory is pure comedy in a game this violent.

look at college.. they added 1 more game a few years ago.. did the quality go down? Are kids shaking in wheelchairs due to the +1?

16 wasn't the sweet spot. It was just a number....

feltdizz
09-30-2010, 12:30 PM
See how fast the players themselves stop caring abouth their feeling and well being when dollars arer waved in front of them.
Oh yes, because

A) One player speaks for the entire league - even though that player still said they don't like the idea.
B) A player who suffers a severe, life-long injury won't care as long as he has a bigger paycheck.

Tell me, what's the weather like in Oviedo-land? :lol:

:wft are you talking about. Money talks and if the price is right the players (union) will agree to it.

A player who suffers a life long injury now isn't waving his fist at the 16 game schedule.

Vindrow
09-30-2010, 01:41 PM
Each game will be devalued in the overall standings; part of the allure of the NFL season is that each game is vital to a teams success or failure and thus provides for an intense battle.

Pappy

This is my biggest concern as well.
Also, a longer schedule will take a bigger toll on the players' bodies. This could lead to either a higher rate of injury, or the league will crack down on hard hits even more, thus reducing the intensity of the game.

Or both.

This is just more proof that the higher-ups care more about money than the feelings and wellbeing of the players.

The evil, exploiting "higher ups" can't do 18 games without the agreement of the poor oppressed players and their poor "feelings and well being." See how fast the players themselves stop caring abouth their feeling and well being when dollars arer waved in front of them.


Actually, they can go to an 18 game schedule without the players approval..Goodell has already stated this.

NJ-STEELER
09-30-2010, 02:58 PM
There are a couple of problems with the "[we upped by two games] and the league grew" position.

1. Where does it stop? By the same argument we could go from 18-20, 20-22, on and on. There is a lot of history and data now on the 16-game season and it looks very much like 16 games hits the "sweet spot" that strikes the balance between ...

a. meaningful games
b. not watering down the schedule
c. injuries


2. The players are bigger/faster/stronger now than when we went from 14-16. The hits are much harder and the physical demands of the game are much higher than they they were then. As an example, I lift weights and have bulked up now to about 230 pounds. Even though I have more size and muscle to lift heavier now, the toll of the workouts at my new weight exceed the toll at 200 pounds, even on a "pound for pound" basis.

16 games hit the sweet spot because it has been in place for 30 years.

It won't jump from 18 to 20 games for another 30 years.

Teams have moved, new teams have been added and we always hear the same thing..."It will ruin the game"

There is no such thing as too much football.

That's true for you. For the guys who are getting beat up weak in and weak out, there is definitely too much football. No matter how you slice it there's a trade off. You want more games? You are going to have to live with lower quality play. You are going to have to live with shorter careers. You are going to have to live with watered down meaning to the games.

The cause and effect of the games and sweet spot you have reversed. 16 games has been in place for 30 years BECAUSE it's the sweet spot. The owners aren't convinced that it's the sweet spot profit-wise. But it is the sweet spot for the 3 categories I gave.

Players get hurt on one play... it's not like 2 games magically increases the injuries. There is no way to tally up injuries based on games played. Lefty went down in preseason, Dixon went out on a play with no contact.

Using the injury theory is pure comedy in a game this violent.

look at college.. they added 1 more game a few years ago.. did the quality go down? Are kids shaking in wheelchairs due to the +1?

16 wasn't the sweet spot. It was just a number....

makes you wonder how all these guys playing college schedules adjust to the pro game. 11 games to 16..ohhh the horror, they might get hurt a more


another point i thought of is the chance of one of a teams better players being injured for a while and keeping that team out of the playoffs.

like the SB XL year. IIRC we were 5-2 before a freak injury put ben out. when he got back we needed to run the table to make the playoffs and did by 1 game. in an 18 game schedule, i believe the better teams will have more room for error, in a sense, to get that guy back and show they are the better team

phillyesq
09-30-2010, 03:25 PM
See how fast the players themselves stop caring abouth their feeling and well being when dollars arer waved in front of them.
Oh yes, because

A) One player speaks for the entire league - even though that player still said they don't like the idea.
B) A player who suffers a severe, life-long injury won't care as long as he has a bigger paycheck.

Tell me, what's the weather like in Oviedo-land? :lol:

:wft are you talking about. Money talks and if the price is right the players (union) will agree to it.

A player who suffers a life long injury now isn't waving his fist at the 16 game schedule.

How many young athletes think that they're going to be the one that will get injured? These guys have a certain sense of invincibility - most of them have been stud athletes at each level they played previously, and perhaps in the NFL as well.

Players, by and large, will focus on the money now. Most of American society has a similar focus on instant gratification.

hawaiiansteel
09-30-2010, 07:51 PM
Updated: September 30, 2010, 7:33 PM ET

Hines Ward worried about 18-game toll

Associated Press


PITTSBURGH -- Hines Ward rarely looks forward to late December and early January, when his shoulders sometimes ache so badly they hurt on every pass reception and his legs start rebelling after multiple games on unfriendly artificial turf surfaces.

He can't imagine what it might feel like if those games, now the 15th and 16th of an already long NFL season, start arriving sooner as the 13th and 14th games of an 18-game season.

The very thought of playing two more games that count each season led Ward to predict the days of players spending a dozen seasons in the league would quickly end.

"I'll probably be the last double-digit guy," said Ward, the Steelers' career receptions leader who is in his 13th season. "The 10-year guys you won't see any more, except for your quarterbacks. The running backs, you're really going to see a short lifetime span. The season's just too long [already]."

Any player who lasts eight seasons -- and Ward doubts there will be many -- could play as many games as a current nine-season veteran. That player also will have played far more games than the NFL players who experienced 12-game schedules in the 1950s and 14-game schedules in the 1960s.

Another prediction from Steelers players: Many records may stop being broken because players can't last long enough to set them. And a team's roster in August may not resemble the one in January.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and many league owners want to add two regular season games and cut two from the four-game preseason, when many starters play extensively in only one game. Goodell believes an expanded season would give fans more games worth watching and eliminate some that are next to meaningless.

However, numerous NFL players, including many in Pittsburgh, believe it would result in a poorer product because more games would be played without injured stars.

Steelers safety Ryan Clark can't believe that, at the same time in NFL is making a stronger push to protect players from concussions and other head injuries, it appears intent on expanding its season, thus increasing the risk of such injuries.

"Sometimes you need to have foresight," Clark said. "In one sense, we're saying we want to protect players from head injuries, but then you want us to go out there and do it two more times in the regular season."

Despite Goodell's argument that an 18-game season would improve the product, Clark said money is the driving force behind the push. More games mean additional ticket revenue and more TV money.

"I might get in trouble, I might get a call, but it's all about money," Clark said. "If you want guys to play 18 games, there is some ways guys are going to have to be compensated for that."

Colts president Bill Polian said Monday he believes an 18-game season is a "fait accompli." He backtracked two days later and said such a schedule would require lengthy discussion with the players union.

Steelers player representative Charlie Batch is adamantly opposed to such an expansion because of the increased chance for injury, but concedes it might happen if the owners offer players considerably more compensation during current labor talks. Steelers safety Troy Polamalu's suggestion: Guarantee all contracts, as baseball owners do.

"Obviously, our contract situation now and how we're not guaranteed is probably the worst in professional sports," said Polamalu, one of the league's top defensive players. "So it wouldn't be a problem if they started guaranteeing contracts."

Currently, numerous players sign multiyear contracts at inflated salaries they will never earn so owners can spread signing bonuses, for salary cap purposes, over more seasons. In most cases, only the signing bonuses are guaranteed.

"If the owners aren't worried about players' health or anything like that, then of course they would guarantee our contracts," said Polamalu, who missed 11 full games and parts of two others with injuries last season. "Adding more games, there's more risk, so I doubt they would do anything like that."

The league and the players union are negotiating a labor agreement that would replace the current deal that ends in March. If no agreement is reached by then, the players association believes owners will lock out the players, putting the 2011 season in jeopardy. Major League Baseball lost parts of its 1994 and 1995 seasons to a labor impasse, and the NHL shut down for the 2004-05 season because owners and players could not reach an agreement.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5634427

Oviedo
09-30-2010, 09:09 PM
The evil, exploiting "higher ups" can't do 18 games without the agreement of the poor oppressed players and their poor "feelings and well being." See how fast the players themselves stop caring abouth their feeling and well being when dollars arer waved in front of them.

No question there. If the money is right, the players will quickly forget any health concerns.


Right from the mouth of Ryan Clark

[quote]"I might get in trouble, I might get a call, but it's all about money" Clark said. "If you want guys to play 18 games, there is some ways guys are going to have to be compensated for that."[quote]

SteelTorch
10-01-2010, 10:41 AM
Right from the mouth of Ryan Clark


"I might get in trouble, I might get a call, but it's all about money" Clark said. "If you want guys to play 18 games, there is some ways guys are going to have to be compensated for that."
Maybe you shouldn't take that quote out of context:


Steelers safety Ryan Clark can't believe that, at the same time in NFL is making a stronger push to protect players from concussions and other head injuries, it appears intent on expanding its season, thus increasing the risk of such injuries.

"Sometimes you need to have foresight," Clark said. "In one sense, we're saying we want to protect players from head injuries, but then you want us to go out there and do it two more times in the regular season."

Despite Goodell's argument that an 18-game season would improve the product, Clark said money is the driving force behind the push. More games mean additional ticket revenue and more TV money.

"I might get in trouble, I might get a call, but it's all about money," Clark said. "If you want guys to play 18 games, there is some ways guys are going to have to be compensated for that."


What Clark is saying is that the reason for this 18 game season is money, nothing else. And if the league wants to push it on the players, they had better be prepared to compensate them. Doest mean the players still like it.

Oviedo
10-01-2010, 10:46 AM
Right from the mouth of Ryan Clark

[quote]"I might get in trouble, I might get a call, but it's all about money" Clark said. "If you want guys to play 18 games, there is some ways guys are going to have to be compensated for that."
Maybe you shouldn't take that quote out of context:


Steelers safety Ryan Clark can't believe that, at the same time in NFL is making a stronger push to protect players from concussions and other head injuries, it appears intent on expanding its season, thus increasing the risk of such injuries.

"Sometimes you need to have foresight," Clark said. "In one sense, we're saying we want to protect players from head injuries, but then you want us to go out there and do it two more times in the regular season."

Despite Goodell's argument that an 18-game season would improve the product, Clark said money is the driving force behind the push. More games mean additional ticket revenue and more TV money.

"I might get in trouble, I might get a call, but it's all about money," Clark said. "If you want guys to play 18 games, there is some ways guys are going to have to be compensated for that."


What Clark is saying is that the reason for this 18 game season is money, nothing else. And if the league wants to push it on the players, they had better be prepared to compensate them. Doest mean the players still like it.[/quote:3518tzkk]

But pay them and they won't hesitate. Of course it is about money on the part of ALL parties involved.

SteelTorch
10-01-2010, 01:46 PM
But pay them and they won't hesitate. Of course it is about money on the part of ALL parties involved.
Do you play in the NFL? Do you speak for the athletes? You make the mistake of assuming that all the players care about is money. That's a pretty narrow-minded point of few, especially since they have said over and over they don't like the idea of an 18-game season. Considering how dangerous the sport is now, I don't see how anyone can try to justify stretching the season to 18 games.

Oviedo
10-01-2010, 01:54 PM
But pay them and they won't hesitate. Of course it is about money on the part of ALL parties involved.
Do you play in the NFL? Do you speak for the athletes? You make the mistake of assuming that all the players care about is money. That's a pretty narrow-minded point of few, especially since they have said over and over they don't like the idea of an 18-game season. Considering how dangerous the sport is now, I don't see how anyone can try to justify stretching the season to 18 games.

No haven't played in the NFL, have you? But I guess you are close to the pulse of the players.

We can agree to disagree and we can wait and see what actually happens when the money is thrown on the table. I'm pretty certain I know how it will turn out.

SteelTorch
10-01-2010, 02:00 PM
No haven't played in the NFL, have you? But I guess you are close to the pulse of the players.

We can agree to disagree and we can wait and see what actually happens when the money is thrown on the table. I'm pretty certain I know how it will turn out.
No, I haven't, and I'm not. But when article after article states that all the players HATE the idea, I think I can form a reasonable assumption. :lol:

Either way, I just think forcing an 18-game schedule on players is selfish and shows absolutely no concern for their health. Their bodies take enough damage already, we don't need to add more to their problems.

Sugar
10-01-2010, 02:08 PM
No haven't played in the NFL, have you? But I guess you are close to the pulse of the players.

We can agree to disagree and we can wait and see what actually happens when the money is thrown on the table. I'm pretty certain I know how it will turn out.
No, I haven't, and I'm not. But when article after article states that all the players HATE the idea, I think I can form a reasonable assumption. :lol:

Either way, I just think forcing an 18-game schedule on players is selfish and shows absolutely no concern for their health. Their bodies take enough damage already, we don't need to add more to their problems.

:Agree

The veteran players especially hate this idea. They know what a body goes through. This is probably just being thrown out as a bargaining chip anyway. This way the NFLPA loses by having to take a rookie salary cap and they don't get the 18 game season. It's win, win and everybody's happy. The owners had to manufacture something to give them additional bargaining leverage. Of course, if they get the longer season they win and if they keep a shorter season but get a rookie salary cap, they win that way too.