The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Apparently some owners want to expand the number of games per season to 18 but limit each player to only 16.

This one of the dumbest ideas to come out of the league and plagued with problems.

Does a team rest a couple of starters every game?  Or does a team pick two games that are basically conceding?  What happens if a star QB has a career ending injury the week his star left tackle is off?  If two coaches that are in different conferences that are friends both decide to rest their starters the same game and not blitz will their be accusations of collusion?  If a team intends to rest a player do they need to report it “injury report style”?   How will resting players impact the newly expanded betting? 

None of these questions have good answers.  Either have 16 or 18 games.

I agree.   Your starting QB has to sit for two games, so you need to have a good backup.  There are all kinds of issues with this and nothing good can come from it.

i don't have a problem with it .. you play 18 games as a team .. each player can play a max of 16 .. how it's done should be left to the coaches .. players miss games all the time anyways from injuries so it would all work out.

NFL estimates this would add between 2.5 and 3 billion in revenue per year .. 50ish percent of it would belong to the players via increased salary caps and floors.

I don't see the problem here. What the owners don't want is to be seen as adding 2 games that'll make players complain about increased injuries .. under this plan they get 2 more marketable games per team and no extra workload for any player.

So if on MNF instead of Brees vs Rodgers we have Hill vs Kizer that is a marketable game?

A more likely matchup on MNF would be Flacco vs. Carr or Fitzpatrick vs. Allen.  Let's not pretend that stinkers aren't on the 16-game schedule as is.

There are stinkers, but do we need more?  Also you live in SF....Dolphins visit 49rs once every 8 years so you decide to see your favorite team live...and after paying a premium for tickets, on game day only 30 mins before kickoff you learn Mia is resting all their starters.   

I don't think the idea started out this way but once the players union got involved it became a two game sit. Player's current contracts are for 16 games so they'd have to redo everyone to account for the additional 2 games. It's all about the Benjamins.

This idea did NOT come from the NFLPA it came from the owners.  Probably designed to be an unworkable proposal to force 18 games.  If they can shoehorn in this moronic idea in, a full 18 is going to follow, because players aren’t going to want to watch a must win game to make the playoffs. 

16 games is enough. 

One way to increase revenue and improve player health would be stick with 16 games but increase bye weeks to two.  This would increase the number of prime time games (one more MNF, SNF, TNF and maybe an extra weekend of two games on Saturday) Plus it would now be possible to give every team a bye week the week before TNF.

This came came out some months ago with the owners wanting 18 games instead of the current 16. The players union are the ones to say the players would need to be compensated for additional games. Not sure who came up with the play 16/18 idea.

i actually don't see how the players can really complain .. they want to play 16 .. they can only play 16 .. the owners want 18 .. the owners get 18 .. what's the actual problem here?

I guess you feel the 1987 season represented ideal football as well.

This isn't a new idea, didn't someone float it here before? I have been on record as supporting the NBA resting players but that is a much longer season. I don't like it for the NFL.

I'd love more football, but not if it means starters only playing 16 games out of 18. Just throwing this out there, what if the NFL went to two bye weeks for each team in an 18 week season?

Of more immediate concern is the AFC team in the Bay.  MIA plays OAK at least once every three years, and has played them 5 times since 2011, yet the one game in OAK was moved to London... and the Raiders are leaving next year.  So I've learned not to put too much stock in the schedule.

That's a strange way to word it.  I mean, which entity was it that said that teams would need to charge admission to these extra games?  Or that said that the networks would need to pay more for these extra games, or that they would need to charge to run commercials during them?  Nobody else is doing this for free.

The idea that the players getting a cut of these expanded ticket sales and TV contacts is to be blamed on the union is pretty crazy.  Every other stakeholder would be cashing in.

Difference is that you didn't buy tickets for the game in London and then show up at the stadium only to find out they were in London. 

Just make the last two preseason games regular games, but only count them as a half of a win, or a tie to the team that wins.

So the first two games are changed to pre-preseason, then the next two games are worth half a win or loss each, the new preseason if you will, then the rest of the schedule is the regular season...in fact, they should add two more wildcard teams, but not the wildcard teams that made the playoffs, these will be pre-wildcard spots for each conference, they can play each other before the playoffs for a pre-postseason playoff.

So it will go:  Pre-preseason->Preseason->Regular Season->Pre-Playoff->Playoffs->Probowl->Superbowl   :P

Makes as much sense as the 16/18 proposal.

Excellent idea!  ;D Although perhaps the regular season should be followed by the Pro Bowl, then a week off before the Pre-Playoff games.

May as well add a conference championship losers game as well.  More football = more $$$$

I honesty would not mind a third place game, held the day before the SB.

I wouldn't mind that either.   But hold it the Sunday before the Super Bowl and move the Pro Bowl back to the Sunday after.   That way, the Pro Bowl can serve its purpose..... being a cool down game where fans can watch their favorite stars play one more time before settling in for the long offseason.  That will also allow players on Super Bowl teams to participate.

I wouldn't mind a 3rd place game (I was kind of joking before), but what's the incentive?  It would have to be a pretty good pay day for a player to play in it and risk injury.  Probowl has a similar criticism, but that's the best of the best, I see why they would want to play in it.

Actually, not many players want to play in the Pro Bowl.   They just want to be picked to play in it.