NFL proposes 18 game schedule

[JoeKing]

It’s already in the CBA. Just never been carried out. Why do you think the owners made this proposal?

Because they are greedy.

 

[JoeKing]

The reports about this subject are not referring to 2019.

The CBA expires after the 2020 season. They start negotiations long before it expires.

From the SI article:
During the most recent collective bargaining session, NFL owners revived conversations about expanding the regular season to 18 games, according toThe Wall Street Journal's Andrew Beaton.



https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/07/12/nfl-18-game-schedule-suggestion-player-limit

Even starting negotiations early, it will take a very long for these two sides to come to an agreement on a new CBA. They'll be lucky if it happens before the current one expires. The owners' greed is obvious in this new 18 game proposal.

 

[Reid1boys]

Because they are greedy.

who cares if they are greedy. They know the public wants and will pay for more NFL football.... so why not try to find a way to give it to them.

Why do you think Disneyland built that stupid star wars land and keeps rolling out more crappy star wars movies? They are greedy.... yes, than and the fact the public wants more star wars.

 

[Section446]

We need a better backup QB if this happens. Heck regardless if this happens.

Still need a starting QB.

 

[JoeKing]

who cares if they are greedy. They know the public wants and will pay for more NFL football.... so why not try to find a way to give it to them.

Why do you think Disneyland built that stupid star wars land and keeps rolling out more crappy star wars movies? They are greedy.... yes, than and the fact the public wants more star wars.

Did I say anyone cares? No, I did not. I was asked why the owners made the proposal.

You should stop talking down to people you do not know. That's the second time you've done it to me and I was close to taking it personally but then I noticed you do it to everyone. You should really stop doing that.

 

[Rockport]

Because they are greedy.

Exactly and so are the players.

 

[Bullflop]

16 games is plenty. As it is now, NFL talent is already watered down enough without doing something to make it worse.

 

[jimmy40]

this seems like a stupid idea.

 

[dogberry]

How many weeks does it take a team to get ready for the first game that counts?

 

[xwalker]

Even starting negotiations early, it will take a very long for these two sides to come to an agreement on a new CBA. They'll be lucky if it happens before the current one expires. The owners' greed is obvious in this new 18 game proposal.

The NFL first proposed 18 games many years ago.

Back then it wss pitched as just converting two preseason games to real games.

 

[JoeKing]

The NFL first proposed 18 games many years ago.

Back then it wss pitched as just converting two preseason games to real games.

The 18 game season is just one proposal for the new CBA to address, there are many more. Getting it all agreed on before current CBA expires will be a miracle, IMO. They actually don't even have that much time to get it done. The 2020 season is called the "Final League Year" in the current CBA. If the new CBA isn't agreed upon by March of the "Final League Year", this will result in some contract rules being different. One of these differences is long-term contract structure. For example, in addition to each team being allowed to designate a franchise player, they will be allowed to designate a transition player. What does this mean? For the Cowboys, it means they could franchise tag Dak and transition tag Cooper, thus keeping them without having a new long term agreement for either of them through the 2020 season.

 

[gjkoeppen]

I agree that the fans and the NFL wouldn't want it. But I can't imagine why teams wouldn't do it.

You don't know in advance what the standings or your team will look like by the last game of the season. But you do know some things. You know that the last game of the season is by far the most likely game on your schedule to be meaningless (either because you're eliminated or because you've clinched). And you know that if you sit a guy out early and he ends up getting injured at some point, you've wasted a rest day on him. For both reasons, you don't want to rest your best players early: you may be wasting that rest day. Worry about the last game when it comes, not in advance. I guarantee teams would hold off on resting their best guys until the end.

I think you have this wrong. The last game is very important to most teams. Many teams need a win to get into the playoffs or need a win to get a bye in the playoffs or get at least 1 home game in the playoffs. Half of the teams make the playoffs and half don't and probably only 1/4 of the teams know they aren't going to make the playoffs prior to the last game. The NFL isn't like the NBA where stars get rest days during the season. About the only time you see players get rest days is the last game or two when they have the playoffs locked up and no chance of moving up in the playoff standings and usually that's only one or two teams every year.
.

 

[HungryLion]

I think you have this wrong. The last game is very important to most teams. Many teams need a win to get into the playoffs or need a win to get a bye in the playoffs or get at least 1 home game in the playoffs. Half of the teams make the playoffs and half don't and probably only 1/4 of the teams know they aren't going to make the playoffs prior to the last game. The NFL isn't like the NBA where stars get rest days during the season. About the only time you see players get rest days is the last game or two when they have the playoffs locked up and no chance of moving up in the playoff standings and usually that's only one or two teams every year.
.

It’s also good for the NFL to have the “win and you’re in” games.

Most years there is at least one of these types of games, which effectively creates an additional playoff game.

 

[lukin2006]

Just stupid. The only way an 18 game season would work is by increasing the roster size and salary cap...

Season ticket holders should expect to see the best lineup the team can field...

 

[CPanther95]

I like what it would do for scheduling. It would remain nice and neat. They'd just add in the same ranked opponent from two divisions in the AFC. If you're into parity, that would make 4 of 18 (22.2%) games instead of 2 of 16 (12.5%) games determined by previous year's rank.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I think you have this wrong. The last game is very important to most teams. Many teams need a win to get into the playoffs or need a win to get a bye in the playoffs or get at least 1 home game in the playoffs. Half of the teams make the playoffs and half don't and probably only 1/4 of the teams know they aren't going to make the playoffs prior to the last game. The NFL isn't like the NBA where stars get rest days during the season. About the only time you see players get rest days is the last game or two when they have the playoffs locked up and no chance of moving up in the playoff standings and usually that's only one or two teams every year.
.

I think you just made my argument for me. The NFL doesn't rest guys during the season; only at the very end.

The last game is NOT very important to most teams. At least 18 teams in the league were already eliminated last season before week 17, and at least 4 others were locked into their playoff spots (more, I think, but I'm too lazy to work through it right now). Fewer than 1/3 of the teams had something to play for.

But here's the important thing. Teams don't know in advance which future games will be important and which won't. So when you're deciding on your gameday roster in week 5 or week 8 or week 11, why on earth would you sit your star pass-rusher or your franchise QB? You know today's game is important (if you're already eliminated, none of this matters). You don't know if the season finale will be important and there's a pretty darned good chance it won't be. You also know that this guy may get hurt at some point and miss a game or two anyway, so you'd feel pretty silly sitting him now when he's healthy.

Sure, the last game of the season could be important. But you don't know that in advance. What you do know is that it's the game on your schedule that's MOST LIKELY to be meaningless.

 

[gjkoeppen]

It’s also good for the NFL to have the “win and you’re in” games.

Most years there is at least one of these types of games, which effectively creates an additional playoff game.

I think you're confusing the college basketball tournament with the NFL playoffs. In the NFL the top 6 teams in each conference make the playoffs. The first weekend games are the wildcard games for the 4 teams that didn't win conference championships against the 2 lowest seeded divisional winners . There are no ply-in games in the NFL playoffs. There is a big long list of tie breakers that determine the wildcard teams.
.

 

[gjkoeppen]

I think you just made my argument for me. The NFL doesn't rest guys during the season; only at the very end.

The last game is NOT very important to most teams. At least 18 teams in the league were already eliminated last season before week 17, and at least 4 others were locked into their playoff spots (more, I think, but I'm too lazy to work through it right now). Fewer than 1/3 of the teams had something to play for.

But here's the important thing. Teams don't know in advance which future games will be important and which won't. So when you're deciding on your gameday roster in week 5 or week 8 or week 11, why on earth would you sit your star pass-rusher or your franchise QB? You know today's game is important (if you're already eliminated, none of this matters). You don't know if the season finale will be important and there's a pretty darned good chance it won't be. You also know that this guy may get hurt at some point and miss a game or two anyway, so you'd feel pretty silly sitting him now when he's healthy.

Sure, the last game of the season could be important. But you don't know that in advance. What you do know is that it's the game on your schedule that's MOST LIKELY to be meaningless.

Picking one season is not a very good method to use to support anything. The Cowboys back a few years ago alone had THREE years in a row that if the won their last game they were in but unfortunately they didn't. They also had a last game to win and in against the eagles at home and won, in fact they shut them out and the following week they play the wild card game at home (eagles were the wildcard) and beat them again. But again if the league thinks that 16 games is enough games for starters then all these years they should have then said that the starters were ineligible for the playoffs. because the starters or almost all starters already played 16 games.
.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Picking one season is not a very good method to use to support anything.

Show me a year when half the league, or anything close to it, plays a meaningful game in the final week. I'll be shocked if you find one. More precisely, week 17 is always the week with the largest number of meaningless games. It has to be, because as soon as a team has one meaningless game, every game after that is meaningless for them (with very very few rare exceptions involving interconference games and seeding).

The Cowboys back a few years ago alone had THREE years in a row that if the won their last game they were in but unfortunately they didn't. They also had a last game to win and in against the eagles at home and won, in fact they shut them out and the following week they play the wild card game at home (eagles were the wildcard) and beat them again.

Sure. But you have to look at what they knew when. Let's look at 2012. They were 5-6 after week 12. Would they rest Romo then? No! The next game was absolutely critical. And the game after that. And the game after that. How about week 16? Nope: they went into that game with a chance to clinch and render week 17 meaningless. No way they're resting Romo then! They lost that game, which is why week 17 mattered.

But again if the league thinks that 16 games is enough games for starters then all these years they should have then said that the starters were ineligible for the playoffs. because the starters or almost all starters already played 16 games.

This proposal has nothing to do with what the league thinks is the right number of games for starters. It's entirely about what the league thinks they can get the players' union to accept.[/QUOTE]

 

[dogunwo]

I think a minutes cap of 120 minutes would be better.

What I am saying is that a player playing in a game shouldn't count if a player got injured during the opening kickoff and unable to return. Also, there have been some games where the game is over after the 3rd quarter. If a team sits out their qb 4 times in the 4th quarter, that is a full game right there.

I think that would get too complicated and controversial.