What's new
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)

Faust

Faust

MVP
Report: NFL owners pitch 18-game schedule, but with players restricted to 16 games

Thoughts on the fantasy football implications?

Right now our 10 team league uses Week 1-13 as our fantasy football regular season, and weeks 14-16 are when our playoffs take place. Two divisions - each with 5 teams - so playing your divisional opponents 2x and the other division 1x is a perfect match to the number of regular season games. What’s the best way to add 2 more games?

Our league size can accommodate enough depth at RB, WR, and TE that there will be enough players to fill starting positions; however, I can foresee increased focus on grabbing running back handcuffs.

Quarterbacks could become interesting - if each team moves towards rostering 3 QBs  - do you grab a QB ranked in the 25-30 range or would you be better off grabbing one of the more talented backup QBs  - especially if you are targeting the backup to one of your starters. 

An example could be pairing Luck & Brissett, or Brees & Bridgewater.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So effectively every player on your FF roster could have up to 3 "bye" weeks, and you only know ONE of those weeks (team bye) at the draft?  Yikes. I wonder how far ahead of gametime you'd know that a given player was sitting out.

You could adapt with best-ball format and perhaps slightly bigger rosters.

 
I'll be honest, if this makes it through into the NFL rule books; my local redraft/keepers will just close up shop.  Not sure what would happen with the dyno leagues.  Huge rosters so can probably manage fine, but I'd figure a lot of the 10+ years fantasy players like myself may just walk away at that point.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would assume most of the big names on the decent teams would be getting early games off just so they are there for their home stretch (and our fantasy playoffs).

 
Funny, I was just thinking about this yesterday as one of the dumbest ideas I read in a Peter King article a few years ago. Seems like a terrible idea to me. You’re going to sit your left tackle with your starting qb suited up? Sit half the team against the Dolphins? Seems like you’re messing with the integrity of the game. And from a fantasy and gambling standpoint it sounds sketchy.

 
Leroy Hoard said:
I would assume most of the big names on the decent teams would be getting early games off just so they are there for their home stretch (and our fantasy playoffs).
Click to expand...
Good teams may start thinking they’ll have the playoffs wrapped up and sit everyone who didn’t miss time with injury the last two weeks. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So fans pay full price for every game but the biggest healthy stars may not play in the game they paid to attend, with no notice (unlike knowing your team has locked in a bye at the end of the season). Teams would try to play head games about if players are resting or not, too. So that their opponent has to gameplan for everyone. 

Yeah, this isn't ever happening.

 
The only way to get the 18-game schedule is to have more expansion teams, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 
I could see a situation where more players that are at the 50/50 questionable stage in a given week are inactive, thereby giving them an extra week to heal

 
  • Smile
Reactions: ZWK
ridicule said:
I'll be honest, if this makes it through into the NFL rule books; my local redraft/keepers will just close up shop.  Not sure what would happen with the dyno leagues.  Huge rosters so can probably manage fine, but I'd figure a lot of the 10+ years fantasy players like myself may just walk away at that point.  
Click to expand...
Seems a little extreme. Just adapt.

 
Yogibear said:
The only way to get the 18-game schedule is to have more expansion teams, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Click to expand...
I could see it if they expand rosters and guarantee contracts. Or guarantee more at least. Only alternative is giving the players a bigger piece of the pie overall, which I doubt they do. 

 
Penguin said:
I could see a situation where more players that are at the 50/50 questionable stage in a given week are inactive, thereby giving them an extra week to heal
Click to expand...
Good point, this would definitely benefit the players. They wouldn't feel like they had to go out there injured.

 
Horrible caveat for quite a few reasons, the two biggest being it is dumb to tell players they cant play.

Also, as other have said, it may push a lot of people away from fantasy football.  As everyone knows, the NFL makes a lot more money due to the existence of fantasy football.  The short gain will end up losing them money in the long run if the fantasy impact is a big one.  

 
Trying really hard to kill the golden goose is my first take.

They've been pushing 18 games for years. I get it, in their worldview greed is good, they're drooling over 2.5Bn in additional revenue.

Oversaturation dilutes the product. Most people are busy af with work/life balance and aren't clamoring for more football (IMO.)

I haven't even addressed how idiotic this particular flavor of the idea is....

 
Enough bad feedback on this or any other proposal usually kills these things.  That's why they float this stuff before implementing it.

 
What Dr. Chao also said was that when an injury occurs, that’ll count toward the ‘two games off’...and then what about guys signed mid-year?  Brought up from the practice squad...pretty much kills trades too.

Just a bad idea.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
before people freak out (and FTR I think this is dumb), Does anyone know what the percentage is of players who miss 2 or more games in a season? 

This may not change the game much at all if they count injuries... 

Brett Favres consecutive starts record is etched forever 

 
Just have three evenly spaced bye weeks. Then you have a 16-game, 19-week season. Cut the preseason to two weeks to make it fit into the same time frame. The owners get their longer season (more TV revenue) and the players still only have to play 16 games and get more rest along the way. I could see this maybe being the end result of the players and owners bargaining efforts.

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

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tool said:
What if QB's were excluded? Just throwing that out there.
Click to expand...
So then you have star QBs playing 2 games per year without each of their starting OL? A group that depends on chemistry and experience as a unit in the first place? Not happening. Nobody's risking that investment. 

 
ConnSKINS26 said:
So then you have star QBs playing 2 games per year without each of their starting OL? A group that depends on chemistry and experience as a unit in the first place? Not happening. Nobody's risking that investment. 
Click to expand...
Not following. That’s going to happen to qbs whether they play 16 or 18 games.

 
I would see it as pseudo preseason games. Rest all the starters at the same time. Now, it may not be the two first games of the season, and it could vary by team when they go that route, but I could definitely see it happening.  Like others, I also think it is a terrible idea.

 
A few tactics:

  1. spread your rest days throughout the season so that your team is always close to 100% / doesn't have to go too deep into the backups (e.g. never more than 1 OL at a time)
  2. rest your starters when you're playing a good team, because you were probably going to lose that game anyways
  3. rest your best players when you're playing bad teams so that you still have a good chance of winning
  4. rest your starters the last week of the season, so you're fresh for the playoffs (if you make it)
  5. rest players when your opponent is also resting players, to keep things balanced
  6. rest individual players when they're mildly injured to let them recover (good call on this one, @Penguin)
  7. never rest players during divisional games
Option #2 seems like a good strategy (if you're going to be 8 point underdogs @KC then you might as well tank the game) and pretty disastrous for the product that the NFL is putting on the field. Real fun to watch, that exciting Chiefs team going up against a bunch of scrubs again this week. And what a historic team, going 16-2 (5-2 against starting quarterbacks, 11-0 against backups).

 
ZWK said:
A few tactics:

  1. spread your rest days throughout the season so that your team is always close to 100% / doesn't have to go too deep into the backups (e.g. never more than 1 OL at a time)
  2. rest your starters when you're playing a good team, because you were probably going to lose that game anyways
  3. rest your best players when you're playing bad teams so that you still have a good chance of winning
  4. rest your starters the last week of the season, so you're fresh for the playoffs (if you make it)
  5. rest players when your opponent is also resting players, to keep things balanced
  6. rest individual players when they're mildly injured to let them recover (good call on this one, @Penguin)
  7. never rest players during divisional games
Option #2 seems like a good strategy (if you're going to be 8 point underdogs @KC then you might as well tank the game) and pretty disastrous for the product that the NFL is putting on the field. Real fun to watch, that exciting Chiefs team going up against a bunch of scrubs again this week. And what a historic team, going 16-2 (5-2 against starting quarterbacks, 11-0 against backups).
Click to expand...
All of this is why I like the idea I listed above, a 16-game, 19-week schedule with three evenly spaced bye weeks.

No having to sit players for this week or tanking that week's game is needed. Owner's get the extra TV revenue of a longer season and players still only have to play 16 games and also get some scheduled built-in rest during the season as well. Win-win.

 
I've been saying this for several years. Finally a good change. I feel a little bit like Adam Carolla when they finally extended the height of the goal posts so there was less guessing if a FG was in our out.

It just makes too much sense for everyone. And most importantly it just makes more money for everyone.

 
Tool said:
What if QB's were excluded? Just throwing that out there.
Click to expand...
Why would QB's be excluded?

Only in the NFL is their an expectation that players aren't given a rest day from time to time which is odd because it's one of the most physically demanding sports in terms of physical contact.

I don't expect to see the ace pitcher on the mound every night in a MLB game. It's expected that they have a rotation of players to play the most important position on the field. Same with hockey goalies. The NFL should just make the rosters deeper(which the union should LOVE). A side benefit is #2 QB's would be more important and get more playing time to actually develop and NFL teams wouldn't be such a ####-show when their QB gets injured.

 
BoltBacker said:
I've been saying this for several years. Finally a good change. I feel a little bit like Adam Carolla when they finally extended the height of the goal posts so there was less guessing if a FG was in our out.

It just makes too much sense for everyone. And most importantly it just makes more money for everyone.
Click to expand...
No way, man. And I usually eagerly anticipate what you have to say.

There's no way on this. 

 
BoltBacker said:
Why would QB's be excluded?

Only in the NFL is their an expectation that players aren't given a rest day from time to time which is odd because it's one of the most physically demanding sports in terms of physical contact.

I don't expect to see the ace pitcher on the mound every night in a MLB game. It's expected that they have a rotation of players to play the most important position on the field. Same with hockey goalies. The NFL should just make the rosters deeper(which the union should LOVE). A side benefit is #2 QB's would be more important and get more playing time to actually develop and NFL teams wouldn't be such a ####-show when their QB gets injured.
Click to expand...
When fans buy tickets to the games or even sit down in front of their TV they want to see Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers. If Brian Hoyer is playing that greatly diminishes the appeal.  Other players have much less of an impact.

 
BoltBacker said:
But I think it's good for the health of the players AND it makes more money for the players. I honestly can't think of single reason anyone should be against it. Especially the players.
Click to expand...
How is it good for their health to practice with rigor for two extra weeks? I don't see that as a boon to healing.

I also don't like the competitive integrity aspect of it regardling scheduling and mandatory days off. This sounds like a cash grab at the expense of all other things, namely health, namely balance, namely competitive integrity.

 
Maven25 said:
I would see it as pseudo preseason games. Rest all the starters at the same time. Now, it may not be the two first games of the season, and it could vary by team when they go that route, but I could definitely see it happening.  Like others, I also think it is a terrible idea.
Click to expand...
I can't think of a single other sport that does this, and almost every other sport rests guys on a rotational basis. But I don't follow hockey as close as some folks. When a team rests its stud goalie do they bench their #1 line and just kind of concede the game?

 
Tool said:
When fans buy tickets to the games or even sit down in front of their TV they want to see Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers. If Brian Hoyer is playing that greatly diminishes the appeal.  Other players have much less of an impact.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I wanted to see Roger Clemens pitch every night. I didn't.

 
BoltBacker said:
I can't think of a single other sport that does this, and almost every other sport rests guys on a rotational basis. But I don't follow hockey as close as some folks. When a team rests its stud goalie do they bench their #1 line and just kind of concede the game?
Click to expand...
No, but the hockey teams will find the appropriate team or scheduling moment to start the backup vs.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ZWK said:
  1. spread your rest days throughout the season so that your team is always close to 100% / doesn't have to go too deep into the backups (e.g. never more than 1 OL at a time)
  2. rest your starters when you're playing a good team, because you were probably going to lose that game anyways
  3. rest your best players when you're playing bad teams so that you still have a good chance of winning
  4. rest your starters the last week of the season, so you're fresh for the playoffs (if you make it)
  5. rest players when your opponent is also resting players, to keep things balanced
  6. rest individual players when they're mildly injured to let them recover (good call on this one, @Penguin)
  7. never rest players during divisional games
Option #2 seems like a good strategy (if you're going to be 8 point underdogs @KC then you might as well tank the game) and pretty disastrous for the product that the NFL is putting on the field. 
Click to expand...
#2 only seems like a good option imo if you are a BAD team that is doubtful to make the playoffs and playing a team where you are a 10+point underdog and the coach/front office are just trying to hold onto their jobs. Generally, let's be honest, those games typically suck for the fans already.

I think #7 is a given.

Because injury risk is so high in NFL games I think most teams would try to save their "rest games" until later in the season and try to use them when a player is injured. At least the good teams that expect to make the playoffs.

 
This is why dialogue is so important to endeavors such as this. Reading the article and others, the only thing I could think of was how anybody could possibly consider this a good idea. The more I begin to think about it, the more humane the (I still think) error is. It's not an evil bogeyman, there are elements here that can be accentuated in crafting rosters, etc. 

 
Tool said:
Obviously not possible in baseball.  And 10 x the amount of games so not a great comparison IMO.
Click to expand...
Ok, lets use hockey goalies. Do you want to pay your money to see the best goalie on the team, or the backup? In the NHL the #1 goalie only starts ~2/3rds of the games. It is by far the single most important position on the ice.

 
If nothing else it should be embraced by the players simply to let their bodies rest more from the trauma caused by an exceptionally violent game. Fewer players will be coerced(or volunteer) to play through injuries which lead to more injuries. 

I know it's been accepted that as a fan you get to see the #1 at every position play every game.... but maybe that's not in the best interest of the players long term health. There is a reason every other sport has "rest" days built into their schedule. Honestly, I think the fan disappointment angle is a bit of a red herring anyway. We will watch. Not only will we watch, but the 16 games we get to watch the stud players we will be watching HEALTHIER stud players playing better than if they were nursing a hamstring injury half the season for his bye week to finally rest it. 

Most importantly for a fan, the players have a higher chance of being healthier going into the playoffs and we get to enjoy the best playoff games possible. I really think some people are missing the forest for the trees on this.

 
TheDirtyWord said:
What Dr. Chao also said was that when an injury occurs, that’ll count toward the ‘two games off’
Click to expand...
Well then Chao just sounds stupid to me. Some players will play 17 games and some 16? Dumbest idea ever.

 
Maven25 said:
I would see it as pseudo preseason games. Rest all the starters at the same time. Now, it may not be the two first games of the season, and it could vary by team when they go that route, but I could definitely see it happening.  Like others, I also think it is a terrible idea.
Click to expand...
It might happen occasionally, just like the San Antonio Spurs were criticized when they rested several starters on the end of a road trip. If the end of the road trip ended with back-to-back games toward the end of Duncan's career he would rarely play in the second game. And those fans didn't get to see Tim Duncan play that night.

People act like this doesn't happen all throughout sports already.

 
ghostguy123 said:
Also, as other have said, it may push a lot of people away from fantasy football.  As everyone knows, the NFL makes a lot more money due to the existence of fantasy football.  The short gain will end up losing them money in the long run if the fantasy impact is a big one.  
Click to expand...
I don't understand the bolded at all. But really, as sports gambling inches closer and closer to legal in all 50 states I can promise you that the NFL will make even more money if people can gamble on more events each season. And yes there is some minimal interest in betting on exhibition games now, but it pales in comparison to the amount of action they get on "real" games that count in the standings.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

wgoldsph
Mid-season fantasy awards
Replies
7
Views
527
need2know
need2know
T
My final 2022 mock draft, 3 rounds
2
Replies
56
Views
3K
travdogg
T
daylight
2020 RB Lotto Ticket Rankings
3 4 5
Replies
222
Views
14K
Adso
A

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top