http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-cbacriticalphase030311 Could there be an end in sight? Let's not jinx it. The simple thought of having football again is certainly reason to be happy, though! I've always thought that the pre-season was a bit long (and potentially dangerous), but an 18-game season? I'm not sure I'm on board... I mean, only 75% (made up figure) of players even make it through the regular season. If your team goes to the playoffs, there's a chance you'll end up playing 22 games! Also, the article said the change to an 18-game season might not be immediate, but what if it is? How would the remaining 2 games be determined?
Yeah, read this yesterday, but my question is " How did the league decide that fans wanted an 18 game season ??" I keep hearing, from the league guys, that fans want this, but I don't know too many fans that really want it ?? At any rate, let's just hope that they both get off their duffs and resolve this...I'm tired of it already...
Nobody really wants the 18 games. It's just a way to increase revenue. There are other, conceivably better ways, but this is what the owners are pushing. It's all about increasing the pie so the players will accept a smaller slice.
they used flawed logic. At least in public. "Fans don't like 4 preseason games, they would rather have less preseason games, so they want 2 preseason games and 18 season games"
I agree. It seems counter-productive to what the NFL wants with regard to player safety. Two more games means two more chances for a player to get injured. Personally, I almost wonder what happens if you have a team like the Chargers, for instance, that go 12-3 and lock up the AFC West and secure a playoff seeding AND still have to play 3 more games. That's going to be a lot of bad football with Philip Rivers on the sideline, something fans won't want. I did enjoy listening to Texans OT, and former Hurricane, Eric Winston on the Jim Rome show yesterday. He mentioned two alternatives to the 18 game schedule that I think would work. 1) Have the Thursday night NFL Network Games be put up for sale to one of networks - CBS, Fox, or NBC. He felt it could make the proposed $500M (that the NFL is seeking by adding 2 games) in one night as Monday Night Football revenue is something like $1.9B and Thursday night is the most watched TV night of the week. 2) Add two more playoff teams on each side and have no byes. Not sure I agree with this one, but I just feel like 18 games is too long, and there's going to be too many players hurt and the potential for teams "resting" their starters is going to go up a lot IMO.
I do not give any credit and basically ignore these sports blog sites, have for years. Each writer is just taking shots in the dark. Yahoo reported last week that the Dolphins were not going to resign Incognito. Supposedly they had " sources " LOL
So far I've seen the same hasty generalization logic the NFL uses for the 18 game season used against the 18 game season in this thread.
I think an 18 game season will work. However, the teams will need to be able to expand their rosters. With this expansion there are better chances of seeing guys possibly shine who might not of had the chance with a smaller roster. I also don't think that injuries will be that much greater with 2 games. Yes, 2 more games will be more grueling, but honestly, who here wouldn't want to make that kind of extra money for two more weeks of work?
One of the things mentioned in the same segment with Eric Winston, with regard to an 18 game schedule, was expanding the total roster size and/or practice squad, and allowing more than 45 players to be active on game day. They also mentioned having an in-season IR, where if a player was able to recover from an injury, the team would be able to re-activate him after a certain number of weeks, rather than have him unavailable all season.
“The fans want an 18 game season” is Goodell’s PR speak for “The owners want an 18 game season to generate more revenue.” The fans don’t want an 18 game season, and neither do the players. The fans either want less preseason games or they don’t want to be charged full price for preseason games. Goodell twists a lack of enthusiasm for the preseason into “Let’s just add two more regular season games.” This is one of many reasons I consider Goodell something of a weasel.
One thing I think they should add, even with 16 game season, is one or two spots on game day for special team players. Not the punter or the kicker, but two open spots for players who can only play on special team plays.
The owners currently get revenue for 10 home games (8 regular season and 2 pre-season). Season ticket holders have to pay full price for all 10 games - the owners weren't going to reduce their revenue by agreeing to less games (such as 16 game regular season with only 2 preseason games). I'm not a huge fan of going to 18 games, but I think it could work if you allow 53 guys to dress on game day and you create the "in-season injured reserve", where players don't have to miss the whole season if they have an injury that would only keep them out a few weeks. Don't know how the finances of this would work, but would be nice to keep a practice squad of 7 players for a round number of 60 on the roster.
IMO there are a few points in the new CBA which are nearly inevitable. The 18 game season is one of them. Under the current agreement, the players had no say on this issue. The owners could have, at their sole discretion, changed it to 18 games. There would have been contract issue regarding pro-rating and such, but in the end the players would have had no say. Going forward I expect that the 18 games will come with expanded rosters (something the union always wants) and a reduction in pre-season games (which is something fans always want). As for reaching an overall agreement, I still think it comes down the revenue split. I think the owners want that split to go down from 59% to between 50% - 53% using the same $1B off the top. Or they could work the numbers taking $2B off the top, but the end result is about the same. I think they are adamant about this. The union spent all season saying "never give anything back". If that really is their stance then the lockout is inevitable until one side caves. This article makes it sound like the owners think the players are willing to give something back (relative to the old agreement).
I've always considered the 18 game season issue to be a lot like the rookie wage scale issue, those being two areas of agreement on both sides that could help bring the two sides together. Players are not totally against the 18 game season if it means more money for them (and it will). They hate having 4 preseason games as things stand. So do fans. I think really it's the fans that don't want the 18 game season. Some players have said they don't want it but I don't think they represent the majority. We'll see who ultimately caves. I think both sides will cave, which would in my eyes be a significant move from the owners because to me they've taken a much more hard line stance. They're the aggressors in this re-negotiation, they're the ones that want to move OFF the current deal, and want the players to accept a pay cut. The players have never slammed themselves in the complete opposite direction and claimed they need a pay raise, which I think would not have been as unreasonable as I'm sure many would paint it now that they've gotten used to the idea that the ceiling of the players' pay should be the current deal.
They could take a page out of MLB's book with the disabled list system. There's the 15-Day DL and the 60-Day DL (maybe 3 weeks and 9 weeks (to have factors of 18)) and if the player is on the DL, he's not eligible to play, but he does not count as a roster spot (he still gets paid in full, barring contract escalators/incentives). Once the lower DL stint (15 days) is up, teams can then transfer him to the 60-Day (45 more) or take him off and return him to the roster... it's at the team's discretion. If a player just needed a few days, they wouldn't bother placing him on the DL, they'd just suck it up and forget the roster spot... I think it could work.
My understanding is that the only offer by the owners, awhile ago, was for about 43% going to the players. That was obviously a low ball offer. Assuming they would settle in the middle (59% to 43%), the final agreement would be about 51%. That would basically be the players giving quite a bit back. I don't see much in the deal that could offset that unless contract lengths are significantly shortened, but even that doesn't seem all that significant compared to taking 8% off of $8B. I think the owners don't feel that they will be successful going forward unless they substantially lower that percentage. I think they would prefer to leave the business than sign a deal that didn't involve significantly lowering that percentage. The players would have to give something back from the old deal. Given that they have maintained that "never give anything back" stance all season, they would have to cave on that for a deal to get done.
I do not agree with that. I think if they would, a lot of them would have already left the business. Owning a football team is a HUGE ego trip. Being the owner of a Fortune 500 company rarely equals the celebrity of owning a football team.
If you believe its an unsustainable business model as the owners have been saying, then you are basically saying that if things stay the same its going to end.
Adam Schefter has confirmed that negotiations are extended 7 days. Deadline is now March 11, 5 PM Eastern. No roster moves are permitted during this extension. And no one will notice because the iPad 2 goes on sale that day.
Mike Silver (not that I'm a big fan of his, per se) has been all over this thing from the beginning - going back months - and just about everything he's said has happened. He's not a blogger. He's a reporter. And, he also is getting a good deal of inside info from the league. Second, not every reporter is going to get everything right (especially with respect to minor deals for journeyman type players). Third, was it Silver who even predicted that? We can't just lump in every reporter for a media outlet as the same. Well, at ESPN, where their culture is so extremely one-sided, perhaps yes. But, not at Yahoo. They have guys from all over the place. Silver's articles on this have, by common consent, been the most insightful out there.
18 game season almost guarantees a few things...one is the Dolphins "perfect" season will not likely be duplicated as a team would have to go 21-0. Also, it will be harder to build and maintain a dynasty as players will likely get worn down advancing deep into the playoffs. Although there may be exceptions for teams that rap up games early and/or rap up divisions early so they can rest starters. Depth will be an even bigger factor than it is now.
Ya'll see that cat Maurice come out and make a statement yesterday, he said and I quote, we know our fans dig the NFL, were workin hard to get somethin done..lol, hes a cocky sumbitch,,lol.. Vet players are'nt in a hurry, they dont wanna attend offseason activities..
Season ticket holders around the league will surely disagree with this in some form or another. Unless the owners did not make the season ticket holders pay for preseason games as a part of the package, I would imagine that most would welcome one or two more meaningful games...
the 16 game formula is as follows: 6 division games (each team twice) 4 non-conference games (one entire division) 4 conference games (one entire division) 2 conference games (based upon ranking from prior season) I think the 18 game schedule could look like this: 6 division games (each team twice) 4 non-conference games (one entire division) 2 non-conference games (based upon ranking from prior season) 4 conference games (one entire division) 2 conference games (based upon ranking from prior season) So basically it would add 2 nonconference games, decided the same way as the two extra conference games are decided now. A sample schedule would be. AFC East x 6 AFC South x 4 AFC North x 1 AFC West x 1 NFC East x 4 NFC North x 1 NFC South x1 That leaves only one division that you play no one from. That divsion would always be nonconference, and would rotate on a 4 year cycle. This may not be how it gets done, but it would make the most sense to me.
Give it a few years and you won't hear a peep from the players about the 18 game schedule also. CFL's been 2 preseason, 18 games for a long time and it's an after thought up there. They will have to allow for larger squads in the end and probably scrap the inactive list and rotate some positions more, but beyond that meh.
I think people are over reacting to the 18 game schedule a little to much. Lets be honest. The 3rd preseason game the starters play about 3 quarters, the 2nd game they play about a half, so your really talking about what an extra 3 quarters over the season?? They will more than likely increase the size of the roster which means what for the players...most of the starters shouldn't have to play special teams, which is a good thing. That is a lot less of a chance to get injured. Your talking about more money for the players for an extra 3 quarters of football.
While I don't want an 18 game schedule, I can see it working ok. If the owners really want it though, they are going to need to give up dreams of forcing the players out of the current money pie structure. Some considerations will be given such a rookie wage scale, but the players have been playing the game well and they won't take less money than they do now. The owners got greedy and tried to bite off more than they could chew. They may get a good mouthful, but they won't get what they wanted.
It's really important that it gets done within two weeks. That way teams can sign and let go certain FAs and better prepare for the draft. It will hurt teams certain teams dramatically if doesn't happen.
