NFL proposes 18 game schedule

dogunwo

Franchise Tagged
Messages
10,285
Reaction score
5,683
It's outside the box, a bit crazy and yet, I think, I am kind of liking it.
Sports are always better when the "traditionalists" are not the ones making all the decisions. Look at what's happened to baseball.
 

gjkoeppen

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,703
Reaction score
3,327
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).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.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]

First off the players will still have to be paid and then all the players that have performance clauses that haven't been met that will want those games to get there. They would have a big law suit if players were close and there were still league games and they weren't allowed to play in them to get their bonus money. I agree that there are final games where things are decided but very few stars get that game off. Another reason which has been stated just about every year by coaches is they want to keep the mojo going into the playoffs. Now in a lot of the games in the SECOND half if the game is already decided we see more players taking the final half off, but not ANYWHERE close to what you've implied. There are to many money issue for the NFLPA to agree to such a idiotic moronic plan.
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803

First off the players will still have to be paid and then all the players that have performance clauses that haven't been met that will want those games to get there. They would have a big law suit if players were close and there were still league games and they weren't allowed to play in them to get their bonus money. I agree that there are final games where things are decided but very few stars get that game off. Another reason which has been stated just about every year by coaches is they want to keep the mojo going into the playoffs. Now in a lot of the games in the SECOND half if the game is already decided we see more players taking the final half off, but not ANYWHERE close to what you've implied. There are to many money issue for the NFLPA to agree to such a idiotic moronic plan.[/QUOTE]I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you're just saying that you think this proposal won't be adopted, yeah, you're probably right. But if the league and NFLPA agree on a 16 game limit and players are sitting the final game because they've reached their 16 game limit, what possible argument could they have that they're being held back from their bonuses?

The rest of the stuff you write, about mojo and about most players not sitting the final game: sure, that's the way it works now to some extent (although a lot of guys do rest at least part of the final game). But we're imagining a situation where players are REQUIRED to sit out a game or two games. That's not the case now. If it were the case, behaviors would change. So my question to you is, if you're going to want your stars playing in the final game of the season, when are you going to sit them? Because I don't see anybody resting guys early when the future is uncertain.
 

conner01

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,889
Reaction score
25,808
Hmmmm.

It's actually an intriguing concept and it really puts an added layer of strategy for coaches/front office.

Such as, would you play Dak in the 16 games you were most comfortable winning and then sit him for what would be your two toughest games, or would you play Rush or White for what would be your two easiest games, hoping they would be able to pull out a win?
The issue is really say you are a pats fan and you go to your first game and Brady isn’t playing
I’d be wanting a credit on my ticket price
 

gjkoeppen

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,703
Reaction score
3,327
First off the players will still have to be paid and then all the players that have performance clauses that haven't been met that will want those games to get there. They would have a big law suit if players were close and there were still league games and they weren't allowed to play in them to get their bonus money. I agree that there are final games where things are decided but very few stars get that game off. Another reason which has been stated just about every year by coaches is they want to keep the mojo going into the playoffs. Now in a lot of the games in the SECOND half if the game is already decided we see more players taking the final half off, but not ANYWHERE close to what you've implied. There are to many money issue for the NFLPA to agree to such a idiotic moronic plan.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you're just saying that you think this proposal won't be adopted, yeah, you're probably right. But if the league and NFLPA agree on a 16 game limit and players are sitting the final game because they've reached their 16 game limit, what possible argument could they have that they're being held back from their bonuses?

The rest of the stuff you write, about mojo and about most players not sitting the final game: sure, that's the way it works now to some extent (although a lot of guys do rest at least part of the final game). But we're imagining a situation where players are REQUIRED to sit out a game or two games. That's not the case now. If it were the case, behaviors would change. So my question to you is, if you're going to want your stars playing in the final game of the season, when are you going to sit them? Because I don't see anybody resting guys early when the future is uncertain.[/QUOTE]


I don't, that's the whole point of my response because this is such a moronic idea that although it's just my opinion, I seriously doubt the NFLPA will ever agree to this nonsense. There's a HUGE difference between a coach that may choose to sit a player and the league mandating he must.
I'm not going to play this silly game of trying to decide when I can and can't play my starters.
.
 

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
56,918
Reaction score
64,330
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
First off the players will still have to be paid and then all the players that have performance clauses that haven't been met that will want those games to get there. They would have a big law suit if players were close and there were still league games and they weren't allowed to play in them to get their bonus money. I agree that there are final games where things are decided but very few stars get that game off. Another reason which has been stated just about every year by coaches is they want to keep the mojo going into the playoffs. Now in a lot of the games in the SECOND half if the game is already decided we see more players taking the final half off, but not ANYWHERE close to what you've implied. There are to many money issue for the NFLPA to agree to such a idiotic moronic plan.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you're just saying that you think this proposal won't be adopted, yeah, you're probably right. But if the league and NFLPA agree on a 16 game limit and players are sitting the final game because they've reached their 16 game limit, what possible argument could they have that they're being held back from their bonuses?

The rest of the stuff you write, about mojo and about most players not sitting the final game: sure, that's the way it works now to some extent (although a lot of guys do rest at least part of the final game). But we're imagining a situation where players are REQUIRED to sit out a game or two games. That's not the case now. If it were the case, behaviors would change. So my question to you is, if you're going to want your stars playing in the final game of the season, when are you going to sit them? Because I don't see anybody resting guys early when the future is uncertain.[/QUOTE]

It's never going to happen. The NFL is negotiating through the press.

If they did restrict players it would be by total snaps or by quarters or something like that but it's easier and gets more media coverage and fan/media conversation by just saying players would only play 16 of the 18.

Most teams could limit total 18 game snaps for each player to the average for 16 games in previous years just by pulling players at the end of blowout wins or losses.

The Cowboys in 2018 had a blowout win, a blowout loss and a meaningless game 16.

They would need to increase the 46 man game day roster.

OLine would be the most difficult.


If 18 games happens which is doubtful, they'll end up agreeing to reduce pre-season snaps or pre-season games in order to limit the season total.
 
Top