John Clayton: 18-game season off the table.

[Stautner]

I'm not sure what the talk about expanded active rosters is about - not sure how that would help make an 18 game schedule more attractive. If having to play more bottom of the roster players is the solution to the wear and tear of more games, I don't see how the product is improved.

 

[Rogah]

I agree. If you a member of the team I think you should be active period. Why have a 53 man roster if only 45 can dress?

The NFL has no minor leagues and injured reserve (currently) is a season-ending move. This way you can de-activate an injured player or two if you so choose but keep them around for later in the season. I think both those numbers will expand, but I have no problem with the concept of having a bigger roster than number of players you can dress.

 

[Doomsday101]

I'm not sure what the talk about expanded active rosters is about - not sure how that would help make an 18 game schedule more attractive. If having to play more bottom of the roster players is the solution to the wear and tear of more games, I don't see how the product benefits.

I would like to see 53 active players but it has nothing to do with adding more games. I just think if a guy has made the team roster coming out of camp that they should be considered active players. They collect a pay check, they work out during the week why not allow them to be active on game day

 

[Stautner]

I would like to see 53 active players but it has nothing to do with adding more games. I just think if a guy has made the team roster coming out of camp that they should be considered active players. They collect a pay check, they work out during the week why not allow them to be active on game day

That doesn't really matter much to me. I kind of like that teams have to make some strategic roster decisions rather than having all the backups they could possibly need at every position, but in general i don't know that it really matters that much one way or another.

 

[iceberg]

Because your hypothetical creates a situation we have never seen before and even if they go to 18 games, likely will never see anytime in our lifetimes - and even if we do see it, it will never be more than a once-every-25-years oddity. So I don't see it as a valid reason to oppose an 18 game season.
This isn't college, where only your conference games are factored into your conference record. I think NFL teams should win a division based on their total record which, obviously, includes 6 division games and 10 non-divisional games. A don't see a shift to 6 and 12 as being a huge factor.

so what would be valid? why stop at 18? what's wrong with 20 using that logic? 24? 36?

when would it be enough? both for the NFL and their unsatiable greed and the fans who still support it? this isn't being done to make the fans happy for the most part but to gain more revenue.

that's it.

how many *** do we need to now put by the records?

this record was set in 12 games.
* = 14 games.
** = 16 games.
*** = 18 games.

i'm all for doing away with (2) pre-season games but that doesn't mean we need to add them to the regular season. the added risk for injury means more to the players than us fans, i'm sure.

will they get a 10% raise across the board to compensate for having (2) more games to play?

so while i have no real "valid" reason to oppose 18 games, i do just the same. any reason you can give for it would likely be as good as any reason i could give against it.

 

[Doomsday101]

That doesn't really matter much to me. I kind of like that teams have to make some strategic roster decisions rather than having all the backups they could possibly need at every position, but in general i don't know that it really matters that much one way or another.

I don't I think many of these guys could play special team but due to the 45 man active roster are forced to sit. I just think either a guy is a member of the team or he isn't and I don't see any reasons to have players inactive. All in all it is not a overly big deal just a small pet peeve I have

 

[Stautner]

I don't I think many of these guys could play special team but due to the 45 man active roster are forced to sit. I just think either a guy is a member of the team or he isn't and I don't see any reasons to have players inactive. All in all it is not a overly big deal just a small pet peeve I have

To me this is just somethig that happens all the time. Colleges don't suit up everyone every game either. Same goes for some sports in high school - track for example. Some suit up for meets whhile others have to try and earn a spot at the next meet.

And what about the practice squad?

One thing to consider is that without allowing more players on the roster than is allowed to be active on game day, the extra players may not have a job at all.

 

[aikemirv]

Whuh huh? There are an awful lot of teams that go into week 14 on the bubble, i.e. they're not out of it but they're certainly not locked in. And even the teams who have clinched the playoffs by then are usually still jockeying for seeding.

What did my post have to do with on the bubble or seeding. I just said as a fan that if my team is in the playoffs or close I am ready at week 14 to get them started and if they are done, I am ready for the season to be over.

12,14,16,18 has nothing to do with seeding or being in the playoffs.

 

[Doomsday101]

To me this is just somethig that happens all the time. Colleges don't suit up everyone every game either. Same goes for some sports in high school - track for example. Some suit up for meets whhile others have to try and earn a spot at the next meet.

And what about the practice squad?

One thing to consider is that without allowing more players on the roster than is allowed to be active on game day, the extra players may not have a job at all.

Practice squad is different and so is the pay.

I think because of the physical nature of the game all assets should be available to a team. Not asking that the roster be expanded only that the members of the 53 man squad that makes up each team be active.

 

[Stautner]

Practice squad is different and so is the pay.

I think because of the physical nature of the game all assets should be available to a team. Not asking that the roster be expanded only that the members of the 53 man squad that makes up each team be active.

I wonder what the reasoning is for the number the NFL has chosen to be active on game days? If we knew that it might help us understand why the current system is in place. If the NFL feels there is some valid reason for the number they may rather limit rosters to 45 men than have 53 men active. In other words, the extra 8 may be a compromise, and without the compromise the other 8 roster spots might not exist at all.

 

[DallasEast]

so what would be valid? why stop at 18? what's wrong with 20 using that logic? 24? 36?

when would it be enough? both for the NFL and their unsatiable greed and the fans who still support it? this isn't being done to make the fans happy for the most part but to gain more revenue.

that's it.

how many *** do we need to now put by the records?

this record was set in 12 games.
* = 14 games.
** = 16 games.
*** = 18 games.

i'm all for doing away with (2) pre-season games but that doesn't mean we need to add them to the regular season. the added risk for injury means more to the players than us fans, i'm sure.

will they get a 10% raise across the board to compensate for having (2) more games to play?

so while i have no real "valid" reason to oppose 18 games, i do just the same. any reason you can give for it would likely be as good as any reason i could give against it.

:clap2:

Now, before someone asks the (now redundant) question, "Will you stop watching the NFL when the number of regular season games increase to 18"? or something similar--the answer is no. I love professional football and will continue watching, even though I will believe that already expressed concerns about the change are valid.

But I would like to pose a question to anyone fighting the urge to ask me one:

"Would you be satisfied if the current 16-game regular season remained intact"?

Quite frankly, I think the answer would be no.

Greed is a powerful thang.

 

[Rogah]

so what would be valid? why stop at 18? what's wrong with 20 using that logic? 24? 36?

This is a bankrupt argument because it just as easily applies to your contention as it does mine. If 18 is too many, then why isn't 16? Why not 14? Why not 12? If you really want to prevent injuries and extend players' career, we should go to 10 games. Scratch that, make it 8 games. Yeah 8 preseason games, 8 regular season games and only 1 playoff round (meaning just the Super Bowl). That will save a lot of wear and tear.

when would it be enough? both for the NFL and their unsatiable greed and the fans who still support it? this isn't being done to make the fans happy for the most part but to gain more revenue.

that's it.

Whoa whoa whoa. You mean to tell me that a business entity is actually acting in a manner by which they intend to gain more revenue?!?! I am shocked - shocked! - that a business would actually try to do such a thing!

how many *** do we need to now put by the records?
this record was set in 12 games.
* = 14 games.
** = 16 games.
*** = 18 games.

Uh, this is the NFL, not MLB. The NFL is not a numbers and records obsessed league. We have no sacred numbers drilled into our heads for decades like 61, 2130 or 755. That's why every time there is, for example, a rule change to increase offense, no one cares how it is going to impact records currently (or formerly) held by Dan Marino, Jerry rice and O.J. Simpson.

i'm all for doing away with (2) pre-season games but that doesn't mean we need to add them to the regular season. the added risk for injury means more to the players than us fans, i'm sure.

Well the chances of this actually happening are less than 0, so it isn't even worth addressing.

will they get a 10% raise across the board to compensate for having (2) more games to play?

It depends on what you mean by a 10% raise. Right now under a 16 game season the players are looking at a pay cut, pure and simple. The current model will not survive as owners are dead set on taking back some of the money used for player salaries. But what we could easily see is a situation where the players go from an 8% pay cut with 16 games to a 2% pay raise with 18 games. So yes, that's only a 2% pay raise over their current levels, but it's still 10% better than they otherwise would have done.

So, to sum up, yes, the players will be making much more money under 18 than they would under 16. And that's why they will eventually give in and accept 18 games. And 5 years from now, everyone will forget they ever even opposed it in the first place.

 

[Rogah]

:clap2:

Now, before someone asks the (now redundant) question, "Will you stop watching the NFL when the number of regular season games increase to 18"? or something similar--the answer is no. I love professional football and will continue watching, even though I will believe that already expressed concerns about the change are valid.

+1 and that's where ownership has us. Everyone who watches football, including those doing the loudest complaining right now, will continue watching it just as much with an 18 game season as they do with a 16 game season. No one is going to "boycott" the league. Each individual game will be seen as just as important afterwards. No one is going to bail on Cowboys-Eagles if both teams are 9-3.

 

[DallasEast]

+1 and that's where ownership has us. Everyone who watches football, including those doing the loudest complaining right now, will continue watching it just as much with an 18 game season as they do with a 16 game season. No one is going to "boycott" the league. Each individual game will be seen as just as important afterwards. No one is going to bail on Cowboys-Eagles if both teams are 9-3.

"Would you be satisfied if the current 16-game regular season remained intact"?

......

 

[Stautner]

+1 and that's where ownership has us. Everyone who watches football, including those doing the loudest complaining right now, will continue watching it just as much with an 18 game season as they do with a 16 game season. No one is going to "boycott" the league. Each individual game will be seen as just as important afterwards. No one is going to bail on Cowboys-Eagles if both teams are 9-3.

The point isn't that 18 games is the magic mark where everything goes to hell, all the star players have major injuries, and fans abandon the NFL in droves. It' simply that it is an unnecessary step toward reaching the point of diminishing returns, and puts further risks on player's health when the product is fine just as it is.

The truth is that I suspect the negative impact of an 18 game schedule wont be so blatant as to slap everyone in the face, and that in a few years the controversy will be mostly forgotten. But the danger in that is that it can then lead to 20 games - then 22 and so on, and for what?

Another truth is that if you screw with a good thing long enough it can and will be damaged. As I said before, if there was a compelling reason to screw with what we hav - if the NFL was struggling for example - the it would make sense to start playing with the status quo. But when the league is strong and the status quo is working and the money is abundant, then why risk screwing with it? We know there will be more injuries, including serious ones and including ones to star players, so why risk that when there is no compelling reason to do so?

 

[Draegerman]

well hell, by that logic let's just pull a hockey stunt and make the season 6 months long.

Heh...and then I could finally beat you in fantasy football.

 

[iceberg]

Heh...and then I could finally beat you in fantasy football.

hahahahahahahaha - good to see you draeg. : )

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Call me selfish. Call me handsome, call me irresponsible.

But I want the 18-game season.
that is the price you pay for half-a-mil minimums and $30 million deals the players sign for.

When was the last time negotiations centered on something the fans want?
For oncet ah thought the fans would git something, but nooooooo.

Players, if you are so worried about wearing out during the season or in a career, just ask for a concession that says you will play less and the replacements . . . I mean the second-stringer will play more.

Of course, that would involve less salary for your worn-out players.

 

[iceberg]

......

was it me or did he just disagree with me then agree with your post that agreed with mine?

this isn't a good day to try and keep up with such shenanagins. is even close to spelled correctly?

anyway - i'm not really going to get into the point. like i said before XX number of games is some arbitrary number that fans will argue for or against based on their own desires. i personally think 4 months of football is enough. Tag on another month for playoffs and then 3 weeks for probowl and superbowl and we've already gone into 5+ months of football.

when i asked rogah about it all i got was a circle jerk of trying to use my own logic against me. great, but i was not fighting to reduce the schedule, but keep it where it was. so telling me we can drop back as an answer to my not wanting to add to is kinda a pointless diversion i don't want to play in.

as for no one caring about the records, i will guffaw and disagree. if we didn't care we'd not have them now would we? and if someone were to beat emmitts rushing title w/an 18 or 20 game season, you damn well better believe people would want that noted.

i'll ask again - when is enough enough? i don't want to move back to a 4 game season so leave stupidity at the door on this reply. we're talking about adding to the season, NOT taking it away.

when do we have enough games to call it a season, rogah?

 

[Stautner]

Call me selfish. Call me handsome, call me irresponsible.

But I want the 18-game season.
that is the price you pay for half-a-mil minimums and $30 million deals the players sign for.

When was the last time negotiations centered on something the fans want?
For oncet ah thought the fans would git something, but nooooooo.

Players, if you are so worried about wearing out during the season or in a career, just ask for a concession that says you will play less and the replacements . . . I mean the second-stringer will play more.

Of course, that would involve less salary for your worn-out players.

The obvious problem with this thinking is that it is based on the assumption that a clear majority of fans really want an 18 game schedule. I think the fact that many on this site are arguing against it tells us that isn't necessarily true. Besides, it's not as if the fans were clamoring from an expanded regular season, and the owners are responding to the fan's wishes. This was simply an owner scheme to try and get more milk from the cow.