John Clayton: 18-game season off the table.

[Rogah]

1st, where does the $1 billion number come from? Has someone determined that is the added revenue from 2 more weeks of football.

That is the rough value of the additional TV revenue if the current contracts get increased by a pro-rated amount. Obviously there will other additional revenue streams but TV revenues are the lion's share on NFL income.

2nd, nobody has denied that the league can make some additional money from 2 more weeks of football, but with the league being financially solid now, and therefore hurting for additional revenue (which would be a "compelling reason"), and knowing there is a point of diminishing returns, and with consideration to the toll to the teams and players that additional injuries may cause, and with the big chunk of the additioinal revenue that would go to the players under a CBA, is there really as much upside as all that, especially relative to the risks? All told, that $1 billion, if that is a true number, can get pared down real quickly.

It is a very, very poor business model that says "well, we're making profits right now so we shouldn't bother trying to increase revenue." The fact that they're doing well right now, even if that is true (which I am not so sure it is) doesn't really factor into any decision to increase revenues.

A lot of people are taking a "the sky is falling" position with regards to expanding to 18 games. But we already have several teams already playing 17 or 18 games a season, and the quality hasn't suffered. The Packers played 20 games this season, and no one dropped dead after the 20th. They, like every single other team in the NFL, suffered some injuries.

The problem is that the thing that makes the NFL so popular is also the thing which causes injuries, both short and long term. Hard hits, the violence, big time plays, tough collisions, etc. Injuries and bodily wear and tear are a permanent reality in this sport.

 

[Stautner]

That is the rough value of the additional TV revenue if the current contracts get increased by a pro-rated amount. Obviously there will other additional revenue streams but TV revenues are the lion's share on NFL income.
It is a very, very poor business model that says "well, we're making profits right now so we shouldn't bother trying to increase revenue." The fact that they're doing well right now, even if that is true (which I am not so sure it is) doesn't really factor into any decision to increase revenues.

A lot of people are taking a "the sky is falling" position with regards to expanding to 18 games. But we already have several teams already playing 17 or 18 games a season, and the quality hasn't suffered. The Packers played 20 games this season, and no one dropped dead after the 20th. They, like every single other team in the NFL, suffered some injuries.

The problem is that the thing that makes the NFL so popular is also the thing which causes injuries, both short and long term. Hard hits, the violence, big time plays, tough collisions, etc. Injuries and bodily wear and tear are a permanent reality in this sport.

Of course it's a poor business model to turn your back on more money, but it's also a poor business model to keep screwing with a good thing until you reach the point of screwing it up.

Look back, I'm not saying that 18 games is the point it gets screwed up, just that it is a step toward it, and as you can see from Jerry's quote in a post above, the owners are already thinking beyond 18 games.

As for injuries, just because they are inherent with the sport doesn't mean we should take a barbaric attitude that the players are just peices of meat and we don't care how much they get maimed and mangled. The season obviously has to be long enough to make it meaningful in determining playoff spots, but there does have to be a conclusion, and there is a point that more and more injuries would be occurring when it is already clear who needs to be in the playoffs, and more and more teams would be entering the playoffs without key players due to injury.

 

[iceberg]

That is the rough value of the additional TV revenue if the current contracts get increased by a pro-rated amount. Obviously there will other additional revenue streams but TV revenues are the lion's share on NFL income.
It is a very, very poor business model that says "well, we're making profits right now so we shouldn't bother trying to increase revenue." The fact that they're doing well right now, even if that is true (which I am not so sure it is) doesn't really factor into any decision to increase revenues.

A lot of people are taking a "the sky is falling" position with regards to expanding to 18 games. But we already have several teams already playing 17 or 18 games a season, and the quality hasn't suffered. The Packers played 20 games this season, and no one dropped dead after the 20th. They, like every single other team in the NFL, suffered some injuries.

The problem is that the thing that makes the NFL so popular is also the thing which causes injuries, both short and long term. Hard hits, the violence, big time plays, tough collisions, etc. Injuries and bodily wear and tear are a permanent reality in this sport.

drop the drama and show me a few. just because someone isn't in favor of something does not make their stance so extreme.

you seem to make it that way but that seems to be you.

 

[Stautner]

drop the drama and show me a few. just because someone isn't in favor of something does not make their stance so extreme.

you seem to make it that way but that seems to be you.

You are right about this - that kind of thing seems to be common in these threads. I don't see that anyone who disagrees with the 18 game schedule suggesting that the NFL is going to go to hell in a handbasket with an 18 game schedule. It seems the general tone is merely that it is an uneccesary step and stepping stone toward more and more problems.

 

[iceberg]

You are right about this - that kind of thing seems to be common in these threads. I don't see that anyone who disagrees with the 18 game schedule suggesting that the NFL is going to go to hell in a handbasket with an 18 game schedule. It seems the general tone is merely that it is an uneccesary step and stepping stone toward more and more problems.

wild isn't it? the jones bashers take "stop whining" as jones defense almost every time.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

1st, where does the $1 billion number come from? Has someone determined that is the added revenue from 2 more weeks of football.

2nd, nobody has denied that the league can make some additional money from 2 more weeks of football, but with the league being financially solid now, and therefore hurting for additional revenue (which would be a "compelling reason"), and knowing there is a point of diminishing returns, and with consideration to the toll to the teams and players that additional injuries may cause, and with the big chunk of the additioinal revenue that would go to the players under a CBA, is there really as much upside as all that, especially relative to the risks? All told, that $1 billion, if that is a true number, can get pared down real quickly.

If you add an extra bye week its 3 more weeks of TV money.

So if 17 weeks = $9B
Then 20 weeks = $10B

 

[Rogah]

drop the drama and show me a few.

There are several posts in here from people opposing an 18 game schedule mentioning what they seem to think would be a dramatic increase catastophic injuries as well as a significant shortening of players' lifespans. Feel free to peruse the preceeding 11 pages to see for yourself.

just because someone isn't in favor of something does not make their stance so extreme.
you seem to make it that way but that seems to be you.

Tell that to the people who oppose expanding the season. I support the 18 game schedule and multiple people respond with a generalized form of "well then why not 20? 28? 36?" (etc).

 

[Stautner]

If you add an extra bye week its 3 more weeks of TV money.

So if 17 weeks = $9B
Then 20 weeks = $10B

But again, with 60% going to the players (who don't want 18 games), and with all the expenses to be paid, and with increased injuries, including some to top players and some that may be career threatening, and with expanded rosters to be paid, and with each owner and the NFL itself splitting whatever is left over of the pie, it's not really an added $1 billion, and it is not without consequences.

Obviously the owners are in favor of any added revenue though, but the question is if it is enough "profit" to start down a path that is going increase problems. As I've said, I don't think 18 games is going to do major harm to the NFL, but I do think it is unnecessary and it is starting down a path that could lead to some real problems for the NFL. Again look at Jerry's quote a few posts back. 18 games is not the limit of what is in the owners minds.

 

[Rogah]

But again, with 60% going to the players (who don't want 18 games), and with all the expenses to be paid, and with increased injuries, including some to top players and some that may be career threatening, and with expanded rosters to be paid, and with each owner and the NFL itself splitting whatever is left over of the pie, it's not really an added $1 billion.

It is an additional $1 billion in revenue, which is what we are discussing. Obviously it's not an additional $1 billion in profits and no one is saying it is. But adding $1 billion in net revenue is a good chance to "expand the pie" - i.e. everyone involved will be making more money.

Obviously the owners are in favor of any added revenue though, but the question is if it is enough "profit" to start down a path that is going increase problems. As I've said, I don't think 18 games is going to do major harm to the NFL, but I do think it is unnecessary and it is starting down a path that could lead to some real problems for the NFL. Again look at Jerry's quote a few posts back. 18 games is not the limit of what is in the owners minds.

I couldn't find the quote you are referencing so please restate it. Right now the owners are clearly planning on moving to 18 games, but I haven't seen any evidence they are seriously planning on expanding it even further.

 

[Doomsday101]

As a man who played four seasons in the league, slightly more than what the NFLPA calculates as the average career length, Marc Lillibridge, 39, knows firsthand about all the ramifications of being hit thousands of times a year in practice and in games.

In his football-afterlife career as a player agent, Lillibridge is just as cognizant of those perils, and also doubly aware of his clients' objections to an 18-game season.

And so Lillibridge, who logged time with the Miami Dolphins (1996-97) and New Orleans Saints (1998-99) as a reserve linebacker, has concocted what he feels is a simple solution to the league's desires for an "enhanced" schedule.

Play more games but play less.

"Give them the 18 games they want, but play 12-minute quarters," said Lillibridge, during a short break in the mandatory player representative meeting held in conjunction with the NFL Scouting Combine in Indianapolis. "It's a win-win. The owners get the two extra games they seem to really want, and the players get less time on the field, fewer snaps."

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-18-games-030211

 

[Rogah]

As a man who played four seasons in the league, slightly more than what the NFLPA calculates as the average career length, Marc Lillibridge, 39, knows firsthand about all the ramifications of being hit thousands of times a year in practice and in games.

In his football-afterlife career as a player agent, Lillibridge is just as cognizant of those perils, and also doubly aware of his clients' objections to an 18-game season.

And so Lillibridge, who logged time with the Miami Dolphins (1996-97) and New Orleans Saints (1998-99) as a reserve linebacker, has concocted what he feels is a simple solution to the league's desires for an "enhanced" schedule.

Play more games but play less.

"Give them the 18 games they want, but play 12-minute quarters," said Lillibridge, during a short break in the mandatory player representative meeting held in conjunction with the NFL Scouting Combine in Indianapolis. "It's a win-win. The owners get the two extra games they seem to really want, and the players get less time on the field, fewer snaps."

That would defeat the whole purpose. The networks will be happy to pay $1 billion more per year for 3 additional weekends of the same product, but if you shorten the games by 12 minutes, then each game has fewer commercial breaks, so there would be no real increase in ad revenues so the networks aren't going to pay an extra $1 billion for the TV rights when their revenues are left unchanged.

 

[Doomsday101]

That would defeat the whole purpose. The networks will be happy to pay $1 billion more per year for 3 additional weekends of the same product, but if you shorten the games by 12 minutes, then each game has fewer commercial breaks, so there would be no real increase in ad revenues so the networks aren't going to pay an extra $1 billion for the TV rights.

So then player’s health means nothing, all the talk of safety by the NFL means nothing. Hits are an accumulative total that these guys deal with throughout 16 games, we see fresh blood in rookies to hit the wall once they get to 10 games but now we ask of the players give us 18 games. Please why should they? Heck players right now after they retire from the game deal with the accumulative factors of the game it is not about any one player making it through a season it is the overall punishment they sustain over the career.

 

[Rogah]

So then player’s health means nothing, all the talk of safety by the NFL means nothing.

Note to Iceberg: This is what I mean by an extremist "sky is falling" mentality. As evidenced here, some are trying to make the connection that expanding to 18 games equates to "player's health means nothing." That attitude is little more than an extremist overreaction.

Hits are an accumulative total that these guys deal with throughout 16 games, we see fresh blood in rookies to hit the wall once they get to 10 games but now we ask of the players give us 18 games. Please why should they? Heck players right now after they retire from the game deal with the accumulative factors of the game it is not about any one player making it through a season it is the overall punishment they sustain over the career.

Injuries - both short term and accumulated long term ones - are a very real fact of life in the NFL whether we're talking about 16 games or 18 games. I just don't see 18 as some sort of magic tipping point that would permanently cripple every man who puts on the pads going forward.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

I mentioned a few weeks ago an idea floated by Tom Brady's agent. Basically the go to an 18 game season but the max amount of games 1 player could play would be capped at 16.

It would make for interesting debates about when to rest certain players. Would teams have to declare ahead of time? Could 2 opposing teams agree to make it a backup QB game beforehand? Do you sub 1 or 2 every week or do you make wholesale changes?


Ultimately though thats risking too many matchups between Sage Rosenfels and Koy Detmer on SNF

 

[Doomsday101]

Note to Iceberg: This is what I mean by an extremist "sky is falling" mentality. As evidenced here, some are trying to make the connection that expanding to 18 games equates to "player's health means nothing." That attitude is little more than an extremist overreaction.
Injuries - both short term and accumulated long term ones - are a very real fact of life in the NFL whether we're talking about 16 games or 18 games. I just don't see 18 as some sort of magic tipping point that would permanently cripple every man who puts on the pads going forward.

BS, ask the player that live with the effects well after the games are done. Could they play 18 yes but the effects of players who only played 14 games is well documented. Football should not be about endurance of how much punishment a body can take. Hell why not 20 reg season game or more.

 

[iceberg]

There are several posts in here from people opposing an 18 game schedule mentioning what they seem to think would be a dramatic increase catastophic injuries as well as a significant shortening of players' lifespans. Feel free to peruse the preceeding 11 pages to see for yourself.Tell that to the people who oppose expanding the season. I support the 18 game schedule and multiple people respond with a generalized form of "well then why not 20? 28? 36?" (etc).

yea, and i've said all you reference above but i'm in no way going BALLISTIC over this. i just don't see the value or need.

also:
Originally Posted by Doomsday101 [URL="http://cowboyszone.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif"][/URL]
So then player’s health means nothing, all the talk of safety by the NFL means nothing.

it's a point, nothing more. you're the one who's making it as if dooms is saying the sky is falling. maybe you WANT to read it that way but i don't see him doing the drama dance you accuse him of.

when you're ready to talk somewhere in the middle about this, cool. until then i think i need to move along cause you're the one stirring up drama around this - not the people who oppose it for their own reasons.

 

[iceberg]

BS, ask the player that live with the effects well after the games are done. Could they play 18 yes but the effects of players who only played 14 games is well documented. Football should not be about endurance of how much punishment a body can take. Hell why not 20 reg season game or more.

i'll agree - players health *is* a concern, not the mythical "billions of rea$ons" he cites. i don't deny that's a factor but only ONE of many to consider.

and give up asking him how many is too many because as far as i know he's never answered the question, just accused people of getting all drama about it.

 

[iceberg]

Note to Iceberg: This is what I mean by an extremist "sky is falling" mentality. As evidenced here, some are trying to make the connection that expanding to 18 games equates to "player's health means nothing." That attitude is little more than an extremist overreaction.
Injuries - both short term and accumulated long term ones - are a very real fact of life in the NFL whether we're talking about 16 games or 18 games. I just don't see 18 as some sort of magic tipping point that would permanently cripple every man who puts on the pads going forward.

the point is there is no "magical number" here. but a line has to be drawn. how many games can a body take? didn't we have a former player committ suicide just to donate his brain to science to help players who suffer after their time is over?

wow. but a few more games won't mean anything to the players, right? these injuries are no big deal, just a part of the game, right?

that explains all the rules to *protect* the players does it not? how many football games *should* someone be expected to play a year w/o breaks?

i keep forgetting, you won't answer that.

 

[Doomsday101]

i'll agree - players health *is* a concern, not the mythical "billions of rea$ons" he cites. i don't deny that's a factor but only ONE of many to consider.

and give up asking him how many is too many because as far as i know he's never answered the question, just accused people of getting all drama about it.

I love the game as much as anyone and hate when the season is over but I have no doubt the wear and tear on players. I'm more interested in seeing quality over quantity.

 

[iceberg]

It is an additional $1 billion in revenue, which is what we are discussing. Obviously it's not an additional $1 billion in profits and no one is saying it is. But adding $1 billion in net revenue is a good chance to "expand the pie" - i.e. everyone involved will be making more money.
I couldn't find the quote you are referencing so please restate it. Right now the owners are clearly planning on moving to 18 games, but I haven't seen any evidence they are seriously planning on expanding it even further.

and when they went to 16 there was no evidence of going to 18 then, was there?

no. that comes later as they continue to search for revenue to milk the fans who already pay too much, imho.