Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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.
NFL owners & NFLPA approve a 17-game season: details & fantasy football discussion thread. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Faust
- Start date
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The NFL is hellbent on ruining its competitive quality.
BoltBacker
Footballguy
That seemed like a no-brainer all along to give more of a chance that games are meaningful at the end of the season. I don't understand why the entire last month of the season isn't divisional(rivalry) games.
The start of the season when the fans have been starved for NFL football is when the inter-conference games should be. Those games have the least amount of meaning in terms of the standings and making the playoffs.
BoltBacker
Footballguy
This seems like a pie-in-the-sky lists of "asks" from the players imo....
"(1) Improved revenue split from approximately 47% of league revenues (after having roughly 50% in the prior CBA);|
(2) Improved minimum team spending thresholds and timing windows, above the current 89% threshold, which is only inspected every four years;
(3) Shortened rookie contracts: from five years to four for first-round players; four years to three for other picks, to allow earlier free agency gains;
(4) The end of or limitations on the franchise tag;
(5) The end of or limitations on the commissioner’s power over personal conduct;
(6) The end of or limitations on discipline for marijuana use;
(7) The meaningful sharing of new revenues associated with legalized gambling."
1 - This is actually being dishonest. The players do get 47% OF A BIGGER PIE. The 50% number in the last CBA was after a bunch of stuff was deducted before the split. I think one of the big ones was "stadium improvements" which were very costly. But I think there were other smaller parts that were deducted before the 50% split. I'm not saying the players don't deserve a 50% of total profits but Brandt is being dishonest by presenting this over simplification.
2 - Absolutely! This should be the number one negotiating point of the players, imo. When you look around the league and some teams have ~$50M+ of unused cape space at different points of the offseason something is broken and it definitely doesn't help the players at all.
3 - This would benefit the veterans a great deal but based on past negotiations I just don't think the players voting on this recognize that it's to their benefit so I doubt this will be a big priority. If anything, I wouldn't be shocked if the owners got non-first rounders a fifth year option. I just don't think the voting vets get that this single rule gets more vets cut than any other. Brandt is right to make this one so high but I don't think the union would view it the same way.
4 - Depends on what he means by "limitations", but in general I think this is probably a no-go for the owners. Pandoras box has been opened and the owners will NEVER give up the franchise tag. Number 3 and Number 2 may effect the bottom line more than this one for the owners but this is the one that actually makes fans angry: losing those "face of the franchise" players. Most fans also just look at the number and say, "What!? They are paying Cousins $22mil and he's STILL not happy!?" even if that number is well below what the market would pay him.
5 - This is one I've said all along the league is going to "give up" in these negotiations. The current system is absurd and arbitrary and doesn't even help the owners. I would think they "concede" that some sort of group of former players/coaches/etc have a voice in suspensions..... just as they should have had all along. The single decision of an "emperor" of the sport with no explanation of what evidence was provided or why they made the decision has been a complete and utter farce. "Well, the commissioner must know some information that we don't know!" is a stupid argument made by stupid people. It's a miracle hair growth argument.... "if nothing is happening then you know it's working!". Well, if the commish made the ruling you must know he had some information that nobody else knows..... the system is working!
6 - Just like #5, this is one that is in the best interest of the owners to "give up" just as much as the players. The players will count this as a big "win" in the negotiations but with TV ratings drooping NOBODY wants players sitting for smoking weed in a league where pain killers are so common. This is another dumb rule that hasn't been changed because the owners need some things to "give up" in these negotiations.
7 - I'm not quite sure what Brandt even means with this one. Legalized gambling will benefit the league in many ways with higher ratings, bigger viewership even with bad games, the ability to charge more for streaming options as people want to watch any game not just some local game. I'm less certain there will ever be an official gambling partner of the NFL, though. Maybe I'm being pollyannaish on this but I don't think the league wants to be that tied to gambling in such an obvious way. IMO you'll never go to the NFL app on your phone and make a bet on the over/under. But the ability to do that with someone elses app will lead to bigger TV/streaming contracts.
Overall, I think the players will be lucky to truly get 3 out of these 6(number 7 is rubbish imo). To get 3 out of the 6 they would have to accept an 18 game schedule. What the players should really push for is a 20 game schedule(last Sunday of August to first Sunday in January) where individual players can't play more than four REGULAR SEAON games in a row(which would mean they can't play more than 16 regular season games). That would be the best for both the players and owners and might move the needle enough that the owners would budge on #2, #3, and #4. Those are the REAL issues that will affect players and actually hurt the owners to give up, but four extra regular season games of content to sell to networks/streaming services would be HUGE not just for the owners but for the players as well in terms of growing the pie they are both splitting.
I actually like Brandt, even if I disagree with him often. These are issues that are discussed on this board often but I'm not sure that your typical S.I. audience breaks it down like this beyond, "The players want more money, and the owners want more games".
Blue Thunder
Footballguy
This was a big reason for my suggestion of a 21-week, 18-game season with three evenly spaced byes idea that I proposed earlier in this thread. More weeks means more money to split between the owners and players. Also, nobody has to sit out any games this way.
Time wise the season would be two weeks longer with 2 preseason games and a 21-week season (23 weeks total), compared to the current model of 4 preseason games and a 17-week season (21 weeks total). However, with three byes instead of one, there is more recovery time (and travel time for international games) during the season to help players stay healthier - especially if those bye weeks are evenly spaced.
I never did get a response from Goodell or the NFLPA from the detailed email I sent them (posted earlier on page 2 of this thread as well). I think that my entire plan solves all of the problems of an 18-game schedule and it expands the NFL brand, both foreign and domestically. Hopefully, they at least read it, but I won't hold my breath.
BoltBacker
Footballguy
I would trust your plan before I trusted whatever goodell comes up with. Let's just hope the NFLPA is playing possum and pretending to be against the extended schedule.
Just so I understand, are you proposing the players actually play 18 regular season games? Or the teams play 18 regular season games and the players play 16 of those?
The problem with extending the players beyond 16 games is you throw all the record books out and you expose the players to more injuries so there is the potential to have a worse product in the playoffs. To me the big advantage of 16 games played over 20 weeks in the season is better rested players and a better product for the playoffs.
Blue Thunder
Footballguy
Yes, the players would play all 18 games with no one having to sit out at all. That's why the three evenly spaced byes is an important part of it - for recovery time during the season. I think the whole "having to sit" thing is ridiculous and opens up so many issues that aren't really necessary.
This would mean that players would make more because they're playing in 18 games, but so would the owners and the networks. Everyone would make more due to the bigger pie (21 weeks versus 17 weeks) that they would be getting from the networks.
Expanding the rosters by a few spots would help with the overall team fatigue, especially due to the nature of specialization that is prevalent in the league now. Also, give more IR-Designated to Return spots. Since there would be a longer season, it would be more likely that players could return from their injuries.
All the record books were thrown out in 1978 when the NFL went from 14 to 16 games, so I don't think that's too much of an issue.
Grigs Allmoon
Footballguy
No offense, but I really don't like your proposal. Sure extra bye weeks could help, but it's still a crap shoot as to whether or not a bye week comes at a good time or not. I, also, don't personally like a 23 week pre+regular season. I just don't think extending the football season into the summer or later into the new year/winter is optimal.
That said, I also don't think the players will go for this. They really don't want to be playing in 18 regular season games. I think they'd much rather keep it to 16, and maybe expand the playoffs, if we're talking about players having to play in more games per season.
JMO...
Blue Thunder
Footballguy
None taken. I don't think that a proposal exists that every single person is going to like.
Basically, it would push the Super Bowl back from the first Sunday in February two weeks to the third Sunday.
Bye weeks are a crap shoot anyway, but if you had several spaced out, you'd have a better chance of having one when you really need one. Here's my suggestion...
Bye weeks could be grouped like this:
Group 1 = off weeks 4, 9, 14
Group 2 = off weeks 5, 10, 15
Group 3 = off weeks 6, 11, 16
Group 4 = off weeks 7, 12, 17
Group 5 = off weeks 8, 13, 18
No bye during weeks 1-3 and weeks 19-21
Currently, if a team has a bye week during week 4, they would then have 13 weeks in a row without a break. If they were in Group 1 above, the longest stretch they would have without a break would be 7 weeks. In fact, it would be 3 games - break - 4 games - break - 4 games - break - 7 games.
Looking at the other side of it, if a team currently has a week 12 bye, they have 11 games before then. If you have a week 12 bye (Group 4) in my proposal, you also have a week 7 and a week 17 bye, which would mean 6 games - break - 4 games - break - 4 games - break - 4 games.
Which scenario do you think would allow players to be more rested going into the playoffs? Seems obvious to me.
If 18 games is an absolute MUST for the owners, then this plan makes the most sense to me. However...
If they are willing to concede to the NFLPA and stay at 16 games, you could still do a 16-game, 19-week schedule with three evenly spaced byes. If you dropped to two preseason games, this would not increase the length of the season at all. Bye groupings would look like this...
Group 1 = off weeks 5, 9, 13
Group 2 = off weeks 6, 10, 14
Group 3 = off weeks 7, 11, 15
Group 4 = off weeks 8, 12, 16
No bye during weeks 1-4 and weeks 17-19
You would still have the added advantage of more rest throughout the season and 19 weeks of regular season football instead of 17.
Regardless of which plan you talk about (18 games or 16 games), I really think that the three evenly spaced byes is a good idea.
Basically, it would push the Super Bowl back from the first Sunday in February two weeks to the third Sunday.
Bye weeks are a crap shoot anyway, but if you had several spaced out, you'd have a better chance of having one when you really need one. Here's my suggestion...
Bye weeks could be grouped like this:
Group 1 = off weeks 4, 9, 14
Group 2 = off weeks 5, 10, 15
Group 3 = off weeks 6, 11, 16
Group 4 = off weeks 7, 12, 17
Group 5 = off weeks 8, 13, 18
No bye during weeks 1-3 and weeks 19-21
Currently, if a team has a bye week during week 4, they would then have 13 weeks in a row without a break. If they were in Group 1 above, the longest stretch they would have without a break would be 7 weeks. In fact, it would be 3 games - break - 4 games - break - 4 games - break - 7 games.
Looking at the other side of it, if a team currently has a week 12 bye, they have 11 games before then. If you have a week 12 bye (Group 4) in my proposal, you also have a week 7 and a week 17 bye, which would mean 6 games - break - 4 games - break - 4 games - break - 4 games.
Which scenario do you think would allow players to be more rested going into the playoffs? Seems obvious to me.
If 18 games is an absolute MUST for the owners, then this plan makes the most sense to me. However...
If they are willing to concede to the NFLPA and stay at 16 games, you could still do a 16-game, 19-week schedule with three evenly spaced byes. If you dropped to two preseason games, this would not increase the length of the season at all. Bye groupings would look like this...
Group 1 = off weeks 5, 9, 13
Group 2 = off weeks 6, 10, 14
Group 3 = off weeks 7, 11, 15
Group 4 = off weeks 8, 12, 16
No bye during weeks 1-4 and weeks 17-19
You would still have the added advantage of more rest throughout the season and 19 weeks of regular season football instead of 17.
Regardless of which plan you talk about (18 games or 16 games), I really think that the three evenly spaced byes is a good idea.
Last edited by a moderator:
BoltBacker
Footballguy
I agree that the rosters should be expanded under any new format where there are more regular season games. That should be a big "WIN" that matters to veteran players in CBA negotiations and the owners shouldn't feel as they are giving anything up even if it looks that way.
You make a good point about the record books getting thrown out in the past but I will say that since 1978 statistics hold a greater weight across all sports. Not just in terms of TD record in a season but just all statistics across the board. I'm not saying that it should be a deal breaker on its own but I will say it's a bigger barrier for people than it was in 1978.
While I like the evenly spaced byes better than the current system to benefit the players I would say that I still think that a player that plays 18 games a year is still less likely to make it through the season without an injury and a player playing 16 games no matter what the size of the roster. IMO that potentially makes the playoffs worse and that is too high a price to pay. People are wringing their hands about the quality of 2-3 extra regular season games(beyond the 16 games every player would play under my proposal) but the quality of the playoff games should actually be higher(with better rested and healthier players). To me the 2-3 extra regular season games where a QB might sit out for instance would still be orders of magnitude more entertaining that the preseason games they replace..... that btw also don't have the star QB playing more than a series or two.
We don't have to agree on everything but I think both of our proposals are better than what they have right now. And when I say better I mean for the owners, the players, and oh yeah, the fans. It's astonishing so many folks don't think it can be improved on what it is right now.
BoltBacker
Footballguy
I hear this sentiment often but I'm not sure it holds water, at least to me.
Right now the season starts in August(pre-season at least) and ends in February. The silly HOF and overseas exhibition monstrosity excluded.... they could do away with both and it wouldn't matter to most people. Under all the new proposals I think the same(AUG-FEB) season holds true. The biggest difference is a game or two in August actually matters and the regular season ends the first Sunday in January instead of the last weekend in December. It just doesn't seem that big a deal to me when compared to the benefits.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Hell just give everyone 3 bye weeks and stick with 16 games. Make the NFL season longer and get more money.
I cant get how they haven't figured this out yet. Can anyone explain how this wouldnt make them a lot more money to have a couple more weeks of games, especially prime time games?
I cant get how they haven't figured this out yet. Can anyone explain how this wouldnt make them a lot more money to have a couple more weeks of games, especially prime time games?
Blue Thunder
Footballguy
Just what I've been saying. The three evenly spaced bye weeks would benefit everyone regardless of whether teams play 16 or 18 games. In fact, it might be enough to convince owners to stay at 16 games per team due to the extra two weeks of regular season TV revenue.
However, I just have a feeling from what I've been reading that they owners are stuck on an 18-game schedule and the best (only) way to accomplish that is more rest during the season. The three evenly spaced bye weeks what makes the most sense, imo.
If they do decide to just add a 17th game and make it an international game, then I would think that the players would also still benefit from more time off during the season, both for traveling and recovering.
Grigs Allmoon
Footballguy
Yes, that would be 'more' money, but not as much as pretty much any 18 game proposal.
When you factor in tickets/concessions (fairly small, I know), and the slightly lessened weekly product (Oh, the Cowboys, Steelers, Packers, Patriots, etc. are off this week...) it's not as much money as they'd get from any of the 18 week proposals.
Broadcast companies would say "Hey, I'm still only getting 16 games from the big draws, so I'm not going to offer that much more for the contract."
Last edited by a moderator:
Blue Thunder
Footballguy
Good point. This is probably why the owners are seemingly "locked in" to wanting an 18-game schedule in order to make the TV revenue pie just as big as possible.
So if the owners really are all about maximizing the pie size, then 21 weeks with the three byes would be better than 19 weeks with one bye from their perspective.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
BoltBacker
Footballguy
After watching these exhibition games starting in July I might have to wave the white flag and admit that the current system really isn't broken. I'm really looking forward to this quality of football all the way through the end of August. It's kind of set up perfect even before the injuries in meaningless games start. Having a MEANINGFUL game or two the last two weekends of August would be awful. The current system isn't a money grab(or a much worse product) at all.
Nahhhhhhh. But it will be entertaining listening to the "current system isn't broken" crowd try defend these exhibition games. I'm sure they will chime in and say these games are great. Any time now.
Nahhhhhhh. But it will be entertaining listening to the "current system isn't broken" crowd try defend these exhibition games. I'm sure they will chime in and say these games are great. Any time now.
Morton Muffley
Footballguy
Maybe this was discussed in July or was in the original proposal but I don't understand why the NFL needs more games to make more money. Won't they get 80 cents on the dollar just adding more weeks? It is already a 16 game, 17 weeks schedule. Why not a 16 game, 18 week schedule? Or 16 game, 19 week schedule? Doesn't additional bye weeks give ALL sides MORE of what they want? Players get more rest/recover time, networks get more eyeballs, owners/players get more $. What am I missing? Surely the $ the owners are after isn't gate receipts, is it? Surely the networks would pay MORE for an 18 or 19 weeks schedule with the same number total games, right?
rschroeder1
Footballguy
I get the sense that the owners want an 18 game schedule simply because they won't give in to the players on the issue, not because it makes logical sense.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
I never said it's more money than 18 games.
Edit...meant to quote the guy you quoted. Oopsie
Last edited by a moderator:
TripleThreat
Footballguy
I'm guessing that if it's forced to increase the number of regular season games the NFLPA will counter with an increase of the 53 and the 46 active on game day.
Grigs Allmoon
Footballguy
Has anybody had a change of thoughts on the 18/16 proposal after seeing so many players missing games this year?
There would be a ton of players like Brees, Mahommes, Tyreek Hill who would play two more games in that format than they will play this year.
Players like Barkley, James Connor, Adam Theilen could be afforded more rest to get a lot closer to 100%, as opposed to playing through injuries.
I feel like each and every week there are several new cases that remind me of the 16/18 thing, and how it would help the situation.
There would be a ton of players like Brees, Mahommes, Tyreek Hill who would play two more games in that format than they will play this year.
Players like Barkley, James Connor, Adam Theilen could be afforded more rest to get a lot closer to 100%, as opposed to playing through injuries.
I feel like each and every week there are several new cases that remind me of the 16/18 thing, and how it would help the situation.
Morton Muffley
Footballguy
That's an interesting perspective, but one that is completely contrary to my POV. First because I think more games INCREASES the risks of injury and second because I don't believe that moving to 17 games will cause players/coaches/GMs/owners to take an NBA-like approach in which players are "rested" or given "extra time" to recuperate. That is, 17 games won't have a meaningful impact on the value/cost of a single game.
As I've said before, I don't really understand why an 18 week season with 2 byes isn't the answer to ALL the problems. The additional TV revenue would be FAR more valuable than the extra gate revenue.
And how does a 17 game schedule work exactly? It isn't divisible by two so you'd have some teams with 9 home games and others with 8! The article mentions more international games...so we're talking about moving from a handful on international games to 17 international/neutral site games! If that's the case then the extra game doesn't result in additional gate receipts for current owners. So what's the point? What am I missing because the more I think about the more this solves NOTHING
rschroeder1
Footballguy
Regarding the home/away games, my understanding is that every team would play a "neutral site" international game each year, so that at least balances out the scheduling issue.
That being said, this proposal continues to speak of pure greed. With the majority of the international games taking place in London (most likely in this proposal), the schedule would be even worse for player rest than the current schedule, unless an extra bye week is built in. Mandatory international travel, an extra game for wear and tear on the body. What could go wrong?
As you said, an 18 week season with 2 byes is the obvious logical outcome. An extra neutral site game each year would be at best a split gate for the two teams participating, so gate revenue is not really relevant here.
I believe the owners are so greedy and convinced of their own need to hold power over the players that they will force an extra game, just because. Even though they could get their extra weekend with an extra bye, to the benefit of everyone.
The second bye week could also ensure that almost every team that plays on Thursday night football (except for the Week 2 game, no Week 1 byes would be feasible) could have a week off before their Thursday night game, thus helping with player rest, game preparation, etc. Plus, with 10 days on the back end of the Thursday game, that would be solid recuperation time as well without even using a bye week.
Last edited by a moderator:
Grigs Allmoon
Footballguy
But it isn't more games, per player. I can't come up with an argument to why a player would be more susceptible to injury playing 16 games over 19 or 20 weeks, as compared to 16 games over 17 or 18 weeks, especially when you consider the added value of the flexibility of "player byes". Team byes are a crap shoot as to how much they will benefit teams/players from a health standpoint.
I assume the 16/18 model would still have a team bye (or two), so that would be 19 (or 20) weeks of TV revenue, as opposed to 18 in a 16 game (2 bye) model.
Morton Muffley
Footballguy
Grigs-
Apologies, I misunderstood your comment and as such it sounds like we are arguing for the same thing (i.e. same number of games over more weeks resulting in an additional bye week). Indeed, like anyone spending a minute thinking about this comes to this as the obvious win-win solution.
voiceofunreason
Footballguy
One of the worst ideas I've ever heard anywhere. I don't even know where to start. Even the NFL isn't this out of touch iso I'm not worried.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
If it means 2 less preseason games in exchange for 1 more regular season game and 1 extra bye week I'm all in. Even if it means more neutral site games.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
add 2 playoff teams? blech
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
although back to back days of wild card triple headers sounds pretty cool
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
so 17 game season means everyone plays a neutral site game? will London pretty much have a game every week then? I wouldn't doubt it there would be two byes a season too.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
Do they have a stadium in Jamaica? I'm sure the players would like that.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
Because of 1 more game. He’s comparing 17 games to a 162 game baseball season. I think that guy needs to take a math class.
I don't see us extending our FF season a game. 14 teams, play each team once, 3 rounds of playoffs, pro bowl and nothing the last week.
Maybe more people will adopt 2-week Super Bowls. Love that as a way of reducing variance and letting the best team (that gets there) have an advantage.
