Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I'm not being a d-bag here, but do they? People really expect their all-star goalie to play all 82 games? I guess we just look at it differently. I appreciate the team aspect of the game and don't go to root for a half dozen guys.
I look at it as, Lebron James is coming to your city and youd like to watch him play. That ticket is a premium cost due to the Lakers coming. so you're paying more than normal. You take your 10 year old son who loves the NBA and the stars, then minutes before the game Lebron James is sitting out and you're watching a bunch of bench players. Kind of a let down for those who dont have a hundred dollars to blow on a whim.
I see your point, and again that's what has been going on for years. Not everyone got to see Kareem at the end of his career depending on the night that he suited up.
I don't think anyone is debating that the push for 18 games is all about money. That is obvious. This is just a compromise that happens to have player health as a major benefit.
The problem is, no it doesn't. What does forcing a kicker to sit 2 out of 18 games have to do with his health? Are kickers going to extend their careers by 5 more years? No. The time between games is sufficient rest for any kicker, and if it isn't, he is surely injured.
While i don't follow hockey, i highly doubt people decide whether to go to the game based on who the goalie is.
Ok, I concede... This will not have any significant impact to kicker health. You're spot on.
I went to the extreme to prove a point - every position in the NFL has different demands on the body. Sure, some positions require longer rest periods, but to force any healthy player who is willing and able to sit for a game (for his own good) does not make sense. What about the backup players, like a RB who only comes in for 2 carries a game? Does he need more than a week's rest?
Yes I think fans get set on the game they get to watch/attend vs the big picture. I guess for me, my opinion will be in the minority because I really dont care too much about sports. I enjoy them, but I'm not a die hard fan that watches every week and gets bummed when my team loses. So I couldnt really care less if Rodgers retired at 38 vs 39 or 40. Life goes on and these guys typically tend to have trouble fitting through doorways at that point of their career anyways. I admit, I'm the wrong guy to ask that rhetorical question to.
Ya, in an 80 game schedule that doesn't mean squat because 90% of the teams make the playoffs
That's wildly untrue these days. It used to be that way, yes. Back in the '80s and early '90s. Game's changed, mang.
Hockey goalies are a straw man - if the NHL had a 16 game season the starting goalie would play all the games.
Why? I'm very curious as to why this part bothers people.
We never see the NFL forcing teams to rest players in week 17, that is a choice the team makes to benefit themselves. I have no problem with teams resting players, i have a problem if it is mandated from the league for any reason. The league would be forcing teams to put a sub-optimal product on the field.
No team, and I mean no team, rests players in week 17 when their playoff lives are on the line. Can you imagine a team being forced to start a backup in the most important game of their season, when the starter is completely healthy? Now, I haven't run all the analytics about it, but if we assume all players on a team are healthy to start a season, doesn't it seem reasonable that all teams would do the same thing, whatever that may be? Perhaps the season would end up just being 2 preseason weeks, followed by 16 "real" games.
Nobody said they did.
Nobody would be forced to do this. They would have chosen to do it with their actions earlier in the season.
I don't think so. Sure maybe a couple teams, due to whatever reasoning, may just use the first two weeks as warm-ups, but I doubt many would even consider it. What I think most teams would do is use the player byes in the middle of the season. You don't want to use them too early in case the player gets banged up, because then you've wasted them. You don't want to use them too late, because the games get more and more important. I could see a lot of teams using them before and after their bye for a variety of reasons. I think we'd see a lot of QBs rested after the team's bye because of all the extra practice reps you could give the backup. So, in short, no, I really don't think we'd see the league all doing the same things resulting in 2 weeks of sub-par football.
Wow you mean they may wake up and realized that was a good idea...back in 1993? These people are such idiots. I remember that year when they went to 2 bye weeks. Sweet, another extra fantasy game and 1 extra NFL week. Then they went full blown stupid again and cut it back to 1 bye week.
I like this idea if the league wants more that 17 weeks of regular season TV games. For FF, would still need to expand rosters a wee bit to handle more bye weeks, but at least there would be no "mandatory" rest weeks.
Yeah, but that was a different era in sports, relatively speaking. TV money was nowhere near what it is today and "bigger is better" in the owner's eyes. More money = happy owners.
If you did follow hockey I think that you might be surprised on how much of the success of the team they are going to watch hinges on how well the goalie plays and who is playing goalie that particular night. At least as much as a starting NFL QB.
In 1992 total league attendance was 13.135 million. In 1993 total league attendance was 13.295 million. In 1994 it was 13.469.... so the growth in attendance seemed to be steady growth. So the fans must not have thought it went poorly.
Don't look at it that way. This isn't the NFL forcing teams to sit starters. This is players agreeing in the CBA that they will only have to play 16 regular season games per year, despite there being 18 games in total.
and with those same dollar signs in the owner's eyes, they still went from 18 weeks to 17 weeks. The owners didn't changed their minds because they had too much money back then.
If the players wouldn't do 18 games during the last contract negotiations, then what makes you think they'll want it now with even more information and knowledge about health and concussions?
I don't understand your question. This isn't about the players 'doing' (playing) 18 games. They are staying at 16 games. Can you elaborate?
I totally agree with the Sunday>Thursday thing regarding player health. That said, I think that sentiment has been gaining steam the past year or two. I've heard a lot of clamor for Thursday games to only come after a week off, but that poses logistical problems. The league would have to eliminate Thurs games in weeks 2 thru the week after the first round of byes. They obviously wouldn't want to lose a few Thurs games in there, but if they want to be serious about player health, they should.
The Thursday game itself needs to be eliminated. It's rarely a good match up, both teams are in poor shape, and nobody wants to stay up til midnight on a Thursday.
Well, I can't agree with that. I'm fine staying up until midnight for TNF (if the game is compelling enough), so that's one, to counter your 'nobody'. I'm sure there are plenty of other folks in the non-Eastern time zones that have no problem staying up for the TNF game.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm just saying what I could see happening. As others have alluded to, maybe the teams with a Sun-Thur turnaround opt to rest their starters for one of those two games. Or let them take an extra week of rest off a bye to allow backups more practice time to prep for a game. Essentially, I think teams would synchronize the games they would take out their key players (like starting o-line with their QB1).
I think the only way that would happen is if the player were to say he had an injury that he really didn't have. And if you really think about it, he could just do that now if he really wanted to. Doesn't happen much if at all imo because somewhere down the line it would cost him money and pride.
If there were multiple team by weeks throughout the season it would be easier to schedule Thursday night games only AFTER that team had a bye week. That way the players have more time between games to recover and teams have more time to prepare for their next game as the following Sunday is more than a week away. Again, everybody wins.
Even if you choose to look at it this way, the product on the field will be less than what it is now because starters will have to sit games when they are healthy
Math must not be his strong suit. In the old schedule fans have the potential to see "the stars" 16 games. With the new schedule the fans have the potential to see "the stars" 16 games.Faust said:
