What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

NFL pushing for 18 game regular season (1 Viewer)

David Dodds

Administrator
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true

NEW YORK -- The NFL made a presentation to the NFL Players Association during a collective bargaining session in New York on Wednesday espousing the merits of moving to an 18-game season. The session took place at the league offices in New York City and included top officials from both sides, with the crux of the roughly two hours devoted to the concept of the "enhanced season," as the NFL is calling it.

Mark Murphy, president of the Green Bay Packers and a member of the league's negotiating team, briefed some national media on the proposal after the meeting, saying that it would not be adapted until 2012 at the earliest and suggesting the NFL would consider reducing the preseason from four games to two, adjusting roster size and injured reserve rules, and adding a bye week at the start of the regular season as part of the initiative. Murphy also said the NFL is studying the concept of adding its own developmental league -- likely in the spring -- within the United States to replace the league's past efforts in Europe.

"I think this is an idea that is really gaining momentum particularly within the owners," Murphy said of the enhanced season. "It's something we've talked a lot about over the last year."

NFL owners have yet to vote on moving to an 18-game regular season, but Commissioner Roger Goodell has spoken out strongly in favor of it on many occasions. Murphy said the league would not act unilaterally to impose this plan on players, with it being in his mind part of the solution to the gulf that currently exists between the sides as they try to hash out a new labor agreement before the current one expires in the spring.

"This is all subject to our bargaining process with the players," said Murphy, a former NFL player and former vice president of the NFLPA, after the first negotiation between the NFL and NFLPA since February.

George Atallah, assistant executive director of external affairs for the NFLPA, said the union would not have a formal response to the proposal other than to point out three primary concerns with it. He said the NFLPA had "concerns" about the reliability of the data the league provided regarding the impact of an 18-game regular season and injury risks, and how the league would provide "post-career health care." And, as well, how players would be paid, with Atallah suggesting there would have to be "enhanced compensation," to the players since the number of meaningful games is expanding.

"Those are the three real key things for us," Atallah said.

Two All-Pros -- Patriots quarterback Tom Brady and Ravens middle linebacker Ray Lewis -- also expressed concern about the long-term impact of playing more regular-season games each season.

“I’ve taken part in several postseason runs where we have played 20 games," Brady said. "The long-term impact this game has on our bodies is well documented. Look no further than the players that came before we did. Each player today has to play three years in order to earn five years of post-career health care. Our Union has done a great job of raising the awareness on these issues and will make the right decision for us players, the game and the fans.”

Added Lewis: “I’ve been blessed to play this game for so long, but it’s time to start thinking about what legacy and impact changes like this will leave for the players of tomorrow and us after we retire. I know our fans may not like preseason games and I don’t like all of them, but swapping two preseason games for two end-of-season games -- when players already play hurt -- comes at a huge cost for the player and the team.”

Murphy was asked about whether salaries would have to escalate under this plan, and the league's contention is that the longer regular season would enhance revenues for all parties, which would increase the amount of money that goes to players, and thus salaries will be higher. Preseason revenues are included in that total pot -- the league points out that the average NFL starter plays just five to six total quarters over those four games -- and, from a league standpoint, whether the players get that compensation over 16 game checks or 18 game checks is somewhat arbitrary.

Under the current CBA "players get close to 60 percent of revenue," Murphy said, "and if we grow revenue then they're going to get it. That would be the way we would approach it. It's an opportunity to work together and grow the game and part of it is providing more value to our fans. The quality of our preseasons has really deteriorated over time."

That notion of playing two more full games for no additional compensation does not sit well with many players and agents, according to sources, and when asked about the union's reaction to Wednesday's proposal, Murphy deferred to union officials and players. The NFLPA was represented Wednesday by Executive Director DeMaurice Smith, Cornelius Bennett (a union official among retired players) and its legal team. Murphy was the only person from Wednesday's session formally made available to the media.

Injuries are the other issue where there is the greatest potential for disagreement. Murphy would not get into the specifics of the league's injury study on the impact of an 18-game season, but said:

"The study shows the injury rate does not increase over the course of the season. I think the concern is the cumulative effect if you're playing more, and that's again where I think we really have to be thoughtful about this, and we're going to want the input of players and coaches and the Competition Committee."

The league would look at the length of training camps and offseason programs, the number of two-a-days, and also continue researching the best possible equipment innovations to reduce the safety concerns, Murphy said, as well as continue to study possible changes to the rules to ensure greater safety.

An 18-game season also would likely come with a one-week break for all teams after the second and final preseason game, larger practice squads and overall roster size, and possibly a return to the old system of injured reserve. Now if a player is put on IR to clear a roster spot, he is out for the season, but in the past he would have to miss at least six weeks.

A developmental league is also an idea gaining traction among owners, and could add to the revenue streams as well. NFL Europe went out of existence in 2007, as the game never captured most audiences abroad, but the need to cultivate young talent on and off the field remains. Some very initial proposals have included possibly all teams located in Florida, but regardless the league would be based in the U.S., Murphy said. The project also would serve to develop coaches and officials, Murphy said.

"It would be a real positive for us as a league," Murphy said.

In general, the league believes that players and teams do not require four weeks of preseason to be prepared, and the declining interest in exhibition football does not sit well with league officials. Adding games to the regular season also increases the ability to play more abroad as well, as the NFL continues its efforts to capture more of the global market.

Given the success Goodell has had getting his initiatives passed thus far in his tenure, it would not be surprising to see the enhanced season being a part of the next CBA, with the sides needing to clear several impediments between now and then.

"As you look across the NFL and everything we offer," Murphy said, "we really try to provide top quality value to our fans, whether it's the regular season or postseason, the draft and the combine. To me one thing that stands out as being different is the preseason."

 
This will make 1000 yard rushing and receiving seasons mean even less.

QBs will be throwing for 4000 yards consistently with this rule as well.

It's going to be a big deal, when it comes to player statistics. I'm not sure if I'm OK with it.

 
adding more games is purely money..... I would love to see more games, but honestly, not at the cost of players' health and not at the cost of diluting the meaning of a single game.. one (of many) reasons I think baseball sux, is 160+ games, is asinine.... basketball and hockey too....

 
The owners have all the power in the next CBA and you can see the trench warfare already taking place. I have felt that this 18 game schedule would be part of the final piece in the negotiations for awhile now as the owners KNOW they can make more money with a longer season.

Here is my take on how this all shakes out.

New CBA will be signed around August 20th next year. The league will shave off two preseason games and either extend the season a little bit or chop off some games for 2011.

I fully expect the league will be playing an 18 game regular season by year 2013 at the latest. This will include two bye weeks for the players. The preseason will be shortened to 2 preseason games (and one to two scrimmages where teams line up, but don't score the event).

The rookie salaries are going to take a big hit. The top 15-20 players will all be slotted at significantly reduced costs. After the top 15 to 20 players though, rookie contracts seem about right. I doubt they will change much. In exchange for lower rookie costs, rookie deals will all be 4 years in length. This tightening of the costs here will make getting a high pick very worthwhile again.

I sense the true salary cap is going to be gone. The players will get a salary minimum per franchise and the crazy owners like Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones will be able to spend a lot to ensure they have solid teams. I could see some sort of luxury tax on the high end being adopted.

Players have 60% of the revenues now. There is not a chance in hell they will get that again. The NFLPA would love to hold serve here, but if they end up with even 55% they will have done well. This will be the thing that drags on forever. I suspect it comes in at 54% for the players.

The players will get better health and retirement benefits and a slightly better free agency system (harder to franchise people, etc)

There will be a developmental league. This will help a lot of borderline people and should be popular with the players.

Commish's overall authority regarding player conduct will be greatly minimized. There will be some sort of arbitration panel set up to hear complaints.

Veteran minimums will increase.

 
This will make 1000 yard rushing and receiving seasons mean even less.QBs will be throwing for 4000 yards consistently with this rule as well.It's going to be a big deal, when it comes to player statistics. I'm not sure if I'm OK with it.
I agree that all makes sense as lovers of the history of the game, but the reality is it's great for the league if records get broken. The juiced era of baseball made that sport relevant again after their strike. I don't think the owners will ever let up on the 18 game schedule here. They know it will increase the revenue pie a lot and something like that will be needed when the plan is to give the players a smaller percentage of that pie.
 
This will make 1000 yard rushing and receiving seasons mean even less.QBs will be throwing for 4000 yards consistently with this rule as well.It's going to be a big deal, when it comes to player statistics. I'm not sure if I'm OK with it.
I agree that all makes sense as lovers of the history of the game, but the reality is it's great for the league if records get broken. The juiced era of baseball made that sport relevant again after their strike. I don't think the owners will ever let up on the 18 game schedule here. They know it will increase the revenue pie a lot and something like that will be needed when the plan is to give the players a smaller percentage of that pie.
Agreed. Also, statistics aren't nearly as meaningful in the NFL as they are in a sport like MLB. And it's not like they've always played 16 games. When did they move from 14 to 16 games? The 70's?
 
Commish's overall authority regarding player conduct will be greatly minimized. There will be some sort of arbitration panel set up to hear complaints.
Wow, I might have been selling Roger short. If this crazy over-enforcement of the personal conduct policy (which serves to do little other than call even more attention to transgressors) was all just to give the owners another bargaining chip (hey guys, as a show of good faith we'll leash Crazy Roger!), then Goodell is an evil genius.
 
And it's not like they've always played 16 games. When did they move from 14 to 16 games? The 70's?
'78 or '79, iirc. Also, before that they used to be at just 12 games.I really wish the NFL would start keeping its records by per-game totals instead of aggregate totals, but I also understand that the casual fan likes his lots of zeros at the end and hates himself some decimals.
 
Commish's overall authority regarding player conduct will be greatly minimized. There will be some sort of arbitration panel set up to hear complaints.
Wow, I might have been selling Roger short. If this crazy over-enforcement of the personal conduct policy (which serves to do little other than call even more attention to transgressors) was all just to give the owners another bargaining chip (hey guys, as a show of good faith we'll leash Crazy Roger!), then Goodell is an evil genius.
I somewhat think this was part of the masterplan. You create this environment where the players want to stand up to this, but they know they can't individually especially when they are being slapped around while being idiots. So the players push back in the CBA and the owners/commish give something up that is really easy to do (and should have always been the way it works anyway). Brilliant in my eyes.
 
I agree with David and hope most of his points are right on. I would figure that they could structure an 18 week season with two byes and completely rework rookie contracts at the high end.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sigh.

Pure greed.

I don't like the idea at all. Football is a violent game. 16 games is already a very tough season.

 
To be perfectly honest, and I know that this is going to be a tremendous minority opinion, here... but I don't think the top rookie picks are overpaid. I think they're probably paid pretty accurately. If they were overpaid, no one would even TALK about trading up... yet every year someone's talking about trading up. I think the problem is that top rookie picks are accurately paid, while later rookie picks are grossly, grossly, grossly underpaid... which makes the later picks better values and makes the top picks stand out as "too expensive" (i.e. the #1 overall pick might be like buying a $100 bill for 4 twenties and three fives... while the #32 pick is like buying a $20 bill for a $5 bill straight up). The fact that the draft is really the only economically viable way to construct a roster (as well as the fact that the average NFL career length corresponds pretty strongly to the average rookie contract length) shows that rookie labor is currently underpriced. In terms of balance and maximizing the different methods of team construction, I think the best play would be to increase later rookie contracts rather than decreasing early rookie contracts.

Of course, no party would ever go for that. The owners love their cheap labor. The current players wouldn't want to see their salaries cut at the expense of players who aren't in the league yet. As a result, it'll never happen... so cutting the cost of top draft picks so that everyone winds up being equally grossly underpaid seems like the next best thing. At least then the worst teams get to participate in the same value bonanza that the rest of the league gets.

 
adding more games is purely money..... I would love to see more games, but honestly, not at the cost of players' health and not at the cost of diluting the meaning of a single game.. one (of many) reasons I think baseball sux, is 160+ games, is asinine.... basketball and hockey too....
More games means its much more likely to find the best teams at the end of the year. Its one of the reasons baseball is a great game
 
I'm no more against adding 2 games to the season than I would be subtracting 2 games from the season. I don't know if 18 is the right number, but I'm not sure if 16 is, either. If you think 18 games means more injuries or each game is less valuable, do you think a 14-game season would be better than a 16-game season? No doubt that 20 years after the implementation of an 18-game season, fans will think that 18 is the perfect number.

 
This will make 1000 yard rushing and receiving seasons mean even less.QBs will be throwing for 4000 yards consistently with this rule as well.It's going to be a big deal, when it comes to player statistics. I'm not sure if I'm OK with it.
Personal records/statistics shouldn't drive decisions about the game. Statistics are kept to record what happens in a game; changing the number of games in a season is a decision that should be decided independent of the record books.
 
As a fan I like the idea of eliminating the two pre-season games and adding the two regular season games. I would much rather have the additional two weekends each season to watch games that have meaning rather than watching games where the starters only play a few series of downs and many of the players will not even make the roster.

In some respects there will be a greater chance for injury but we lose players for the season every year to injury during ota's and camp to injury even before the first preseason game. Risk of injury is part of this sport, football can be a very violent game at times. But these guys are paid very well for the risk they take, if not for the money they are paid playing football then many would not earn the amounts they make in several lifetimes of working normal jobs and careers with what they make signing ONE nfl contract to play football, not to mention that many even got their college degrees tuition free again thanks to the game of football.

Perhaps with the additional two games increase the roster spots by a few on each team to give a little added depth on the roster, start the season a couple of weeks earlier and maybe have two bye weeks instead of one to rest the players in season. Set the bye weeks to be by conference instead of random where say week 5 AFC was off and NFC plays all division games and week 6 Nfc was off and the Afc plays all divisional games. do the same again say week 12 and 13 with the NFC teams taking the first week off. Lot of different things they could incorporate to ease the burden of the extra two weeks of regular season games.

But in the end we as fans get two more weeks of real football every season and we win!

 
I sense the true salary cap is going to be gone. The players will get a salary minimum per franchise and the crazy owners like Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones will be able to spend a lot to ensure they have solid teams. I could see some sort of luxury tax on the high end being adopted.
If there is one thing that I am hoping is wrong in your list, it's this. I would bet money if they get rid of the cap, football would become a league of haves and have nots like baseball is. The big market teams would dominate and the competitive balance that to me makes the NFL great would be gone. Small market teams (like Buffalo or Jacksonville) would not stand a chance to keep their players when a Snyder or Jones can toss around millions like its going out of style and sign whoever they want like the Yankees do. I think it would be the worst possible thing that could happen to the NFL.
 
To be perfectly honest, and I know that this is going to be a tremendous minority opinion, here... but I don't think the top rookie picks are overpaid. I think they're probably paid pretty accurately. If they were overpaid, no one would even TALK about trading up... yet every year someone's talking about trading up. I think the problem is that top rookie picks are accurately paid, while later rookie picks are grossly, grossly, grossly underpaid... which makes the later picks better values and makes the top picks stand out as "too expensive" (i.e. the #1 overall pick might be like buying a $100 bill for 4 twenties and three fives... while the #32 pick is like buying a $20 bill for a $5 bill straight up). The fact that the draft is really the only economically viable way to construct a roster (as well as the fact that the average NFL career length corresponds pretty strongly to the average rookie contract length) shows that rookie labor is currently underpriced. In terms of balance and maximizing the different methods of team construction, I think the best play would be to increase later rookie contracts rather than decreasing early rookie contracts.Of course, no party would ever go for that. The owners love their cheap labor. The current players wouldn't want to see their salaries cut at the expense of players who aren't in the league yet. As a result, it'll never happen... so cutting the cost of top draft picks so that everyone winds up being equally grossly underpaid seems like the next best thing. At least then the worst teams get to participate in the same value bonanza that the rest of the league gets.
I can't see any fairness in giving a player $40 million as a signing bonus who has never played a down when great current players can't get that unless they are a proven superstar.
 
As a fan I like the idea of eliminating the two pre-season games and adding the two regular season games. I would much rather have the additional two weekends each season to watch games that have meaning rather than watching games where the starters only play a few series of downs and many of the players will not even make the roster.In some respects there will be a greater chance for injury but we lose players for the season every year to injury during ota's and camp to injury even before the first preseason game. Risk of injury is part of this sport, football can be a very violent game at times. But these guys are paid very well for the risk they take, if not for the money they are paid playing football then many would not earn the amounts they make in several lifetimes of working normal jobs and careers with what they make signing ONE nfl contract to play football, not to mention that many even got their college degrees tuition free again thanks to the game of football.Perhaps with the additional two games increase the roster spots by a few on each team to give a little added depth on the roster, start the season a couple of weeks earlier and maybe have two bye weeks instead of one to rest the players in season. Set the bye weeks to be by conference instead of random where say week 5 AFC was off and NFC plays all division games and week 6 Nfc was off and the Afc plays all divisional games. do the same again say week 12 and 13 with the NFC teams taking the first week off. Lot of different things they could incorporate to ease the burden of the extra two weeks of regular season games.But in the end we as fans get two more weeks of real football every season and we win!
If they added a second bye, we'd get 3 more weeks of real football.
To be perfectly honest, and I know that this is going to be a tremendous minority opinion, here... but I don't think the top rookie picks are overpaid. I think they're probably paid pretty accurately. If they were overpaid, no one would even TALK about trading up... yet every year someone's talking about trading up. I think the problem is that top rookie picks are accurately paid, while later rookie picks are grossly, grossly, grossly underpaid... which makes the later picks better values and makes the top picks stand out as "too expensive" (i.e. the #1 overall pick might be like buying a $100 bill for 4 twenties and three fives... while the #32 pick is like buying a $20 bill for a $5 bill straight up). The fact that the draft is really the only economically viable way to construct a roster (as well as the fact that the average NFL career length corresponds pretty strongly to the average rookie contract length) shows that rookie labor is currently underpriced. In terms of balance and maximizing the different methods of team construction, I think the best play would be to increase later rookie contracts rather than decreasing early rookie contracts.Of course, no party would ever go for that. The owners love their cheap labor. The current players wouldn't want to see their salaries cut at the expense of players who aren't in the league yet. As a result, it'll never happen... so cutting the cost of top draft picks so that everyone winds up being equally grossly underpaid seems like the next best thing. At least then the worst teams get to participate in the same value bonanza that the rest of the league gets.
I can't see any fairness in giving a player $40 million as a signing bonus who has never played a down when great current players can't get that unless they are a proven superstar.
Rookies have played a down before. They've played thousands of downs, and they've never received a thin dime for any of them (unless they're Reggie Bush or Maurice Clarett).It's not about what's fair, it's about what's fair-market. #1 overall picks make more than great-but-not-superstar vets because #1 overall picks are BETTER than great-but-not-superstar vets and have a bigger impact on their respective franchises. Ndamakong Suh makes less than Albert Haynesworth, and I'd bet dollars to dimes that he has a bigger impact on the Lions than Haynesworth had on the Redskins. Was it fair for Albert to make all that money when Ndamakong will have a bigger impact at a smaller price? I think that the current going rate on top draft picks is pretty much exactly what they should be earning, based on the market set by free agency.Besides, you want to talk about fair... is it fair that Chris Johnson got paid just half a million dollars last year while he was en route to rushing for 2,000 yards? Rookies outside of the top 10 are all grossly undercompensated. GROSSLY undercompensated. And in the next bargaining agreement, there'll likely be a stipulation that, in order to keep things fair, they're going to start undercompensating top draft picks just as grossly so the bad teams aren't disadvantaged.
 
Why are people complaining about the possibility of injuries? It's football people it is a violent game and is supposed to have injuries. My god we have turned soft. IMO the more meaningful football the better.

 
I don't understand why people would be against it. More football= good thing. If football got to 30 games a season, I can see the diluting argument. That won't ever happen.

The USFL had an 18-game season. Not sure if that's an argument for or against it for some folks, but I liked it then.

Injuries can happen at any time. Maybe it would mean more committee work to keep players fresh, but an 18-week season would be great. Less preseason garbage is great, more football that counts is great. My all-important vote is yea.

 
I don't understand why people would be against it. More football= good thing. If football got to 30 games a season, I can see the diluting argument. That won't ever happen.The USFL had an 18-game season. Not sure if that's an argument for or against it for some folks, but I liked it then.Injuries can happen at any time. Maybe it would mean more committee work to keep players fresh, but an 18-week season would be great. Less preseason garbage is great, more football that counts is great. My all-important vote is yea.
from a pure nfl standpoint, i don't have a problem with it.from a fantasy standpoint, i don't want to see any more byes. i hate byes. and i'll hate them even more if the afc is off one week and the nfc the next.
 
This is a bad idea. 16 games is plenty. They won't stop at 18, they'll eventually push for 20 as a good round number.

They should add an extra bye week anyway so they get 18 weeks of TV revenue.

And I know everyone hates the preseason, but isn't 4 games necessary for the coaches to evaluate the talent? There are a lot of players who will never have a shot because they will barely be seen in action. No one is talking about that end.

Overall, my feeling on the whole idea is :goodposting: :lmao:

 
To be perfectly honest, and I know that this is going to be a tremendous minority opinion, here... but I don't think the top rookie picks are overpaid. I think they're probably paid pretty accurately. If they were overpaid, no one would even TALK about trading up... yet every year someone's talking about trading up. I think the problem is that top rookie picks are accurately paid, while later rookie picks are grossly, grossly, grossly underpaid... which makes the later picks better values and makes the top picks stand out as "too expensive" (i.e. the #1 overall pick might be like buying a $100 bill for 4 twenties and three fives... while the #32 pick is like buying a $20 bill for a $5 bill straight up). The fact that the draft is really the only economically viable way to construct a roster (as well as the fact that the average NFL career length corresponds pretty strongly to the average rookie contract length) shows that rookie labor is currently underpriced. In terms of balance and maximizing the different methods of team construction, I think the best play would be to increase later rookie contracts rather than decreasing early rookie contracts.

Of course, no party would ever go for that. The owners love their cheap labor. The current players wouldn't want to see their salaries cut at the expense of players who aren't in the league yet. As a result, it'll never happen... so cutting the cost of top draft picks so that everyone winds up being equally grossly underpaid seems like the next best thing. At least then the worst teams get to participate in the same value bonanza that the rest of the league gets.
I can't see any fairness in giving a player $40 million as a signing bonus who has never played a down when great current players can't get that unless they are a proven superstar.
Rookies have played a down before. They've played thousands of downs, and they've never received a thin dime for any of them (unless they're Reggie Bush or Maurice Clarett).It's not about what's fair, it's about what's fair-market. #1 overall picks make more than great-but-not-superstar vets because #1 overall picks are BETTER than great-but-not-superstar vets and have a bigger impact on their respective franchises. Ndamakong Suh makes less than Albert Haynesworth, and I'd bet dollars to dimes that he has a bigger impact on the Lions than Haynesworth had on the Redskins. Was it fair for Albert to make all that money when Ndamakong will have a bigger impact at a smaller price? I think that the current going rate on top draft picks is pretty much exactly what they should be earning, based on the market set by free agency.

Besides, you want to talk about fair... is it fair that Chris Johnson got paid just half a million dollars last year while he was en route to rushing for 2,000 yards? Rookies outside of the top 10 are all grossly undercompensated. GROSSLY undercompensated. And in the next bargaining agreement, there'll likely be a stipulation that, in order to keep things fair, they're going to start undercompensating top draft picks just as grossly so the bad teams aren't disadvantaged.
As far as the bolded...a college down is a poor comparison. Tens of thousands of players play college football every year and you can't compare that to the approximately 1500 that play in the NFL. This is not a debate about college vs. the NFL anyways and it's apples and oranges in my opinion. I completely agree that a player like Chris Johnson is underpaid. But for every Chris Johnson there is a player that does not pan out. Also, my comments were more about the top end of round 1. Those players getting ridiculous guaranteed money without ever playing a down of professional football. They get bonuses like Peyton Manning. They get much bigger bonuses than the majority of all pro players that play at non QB positions. They get this just for being drafted. I just think it is ridiculous and really don't see how that is fair in any sense.

The bottom line to me is that I think a player should earn his contract by proving himself at the NFL level. A respectable rookie salary cap is definitely needed in my opinion.

 
To be perfectly honest, and I know that this is going to be a tremendous minority opinion, here... but I don't think the top rookie picks are overpaid. I think they're probably paid pretty accurately. If they were overpaid, no one would even TALK about trading up... yet every year someone's talking about trading up. I think the problem is that top rookie picks are accurately paid, while later rookie picks are grossly, grossly, grossly underpaid... which makes the later picks better values and makes the top picks stand out as "too expensive" (i.e. the #1 overall pick might be like buying a $100 bill for 4 twenties and three fives... while the #32 pick is like buying a $20 bill for a $5 bill straight up). The fact that the draft is really the only economically viable way to construct a roster (as well as the fact that the average NFL career length corresponds pretty strongly to the average rookie contract length) shows that rookie labor is currently underpriced. In terms of balance and maximizing the different methods of team construction, I think the best play would be to increase later rookie contracts rather than decreasing early rookie contracts.

Of course, no party would ever go for that. The owners love their cheap labor. The current players wouldn't want to see their salaries cut at the expense of players who aren't in the league yet. As a result, it'll never happen... so cutting the cost of top draft picks so that everyone winds up being equally grossly underpaid seems like the next best thing. At least then the worst teams get to participate in the same value bonanza that the rest of the league gets.
You are in the minority...but you also have a (at least a small) point. I'd love to see a rookie cap with automatic escalators. IE: 50% raise if you make the pro-bowl type stuff. I don't honestly see how anyone can defend paying a rookie QB 10 million plus per year.
 
How did that Ryan Leaf early pick turn out again? Getting picked early does not equal being a great player. A player at any pick can become a super star because drafting is not an exact science...

 
I know alot of people hate the 4 game preseason, but I love it. I love watching unknown young guys trying to make the team. If they cut it down to 2 games, there isnt enough time to evaluate these players.

 
I know alot of people hate the 4 game preseason, but I love it. I love watching unknown young guys trying to make the team. If they cut it down to 2 games, there isnt enough time to evaluate these players.
I have to believe going into the preseason most coaches know who is going to make the team and you might get one player who really excel in preseason to earn a spot. Now saying that even four isn't enough when you factor in how many players get cut then go somewhere else and become better players. The only problem I have with this is rb's would go downhill even faster with an added two games a year.
 
You are in the minority...but you also have a (at least a small) point. I'd love to see a rookie cap with automatic escalators. IE: 50% raise if you make the pro-bowl type stuff. I don't honestly see how anyone can defend paying a rookie QB 10 million plus per year.
As I always like to say (with a hat tip to Winston Churchill), paying huge money for a rookie QB is the worst way to find a franchise quarterback, except for all the other ways.Yeah, there's a huge possibility of bust, but take a look at the other options: pay Matt Cassel top draft pick money? Trade for Matt Schaub and pay him a lot (careful though, you may get A.J. Feeley)? Draft Tom Brandstater hoping he's the next Tom Brady? Trade for an aging McNabb and pay him a ton?

Seriously, while I acknowledge the clear risk, I fail to see the sharkier move.

PS: SSOG is definitely right. Even the famed Massey-Thaler study, which has been reported to show that high draft picks are a bad deal, actually shows that all draft picks are a good deal, but that the highest ones are not quite as good a deal as lower first-round picks. The high picks just seem overpaid because, for the majority of our lives following football, they've been so drastically underpaid.

 
To be perfectly honest, and I know that this is going to be a tremendous minority opinion, here... but I don't think the top rookie picks are overpaid. I think they're probably paid pretty accurately. If they were overpaid, no one would even TALK about trading up... yet every year someone's talking about trading up. I think the problem is that top rookie picks are accurately paid, while later rookie picks are grossly, grossly, grossly underpaid... which makes the later picks better values and makes the top picks stand out as "too expensive" (i.e. the #1 overall pick might be like buying a $100 bill for 4 twenties and three fives... while the #32 pick is like buying a $20 bill for a $5 bill straight up). The fact that the draft is really the only economically viable way to construct a roster (as well as the fact that the average NFL career length corresponds pretty strongly to the average rookie contract length) shows that rookie labor is currently underpriced. In terms of balance and maximizing the different methods of team construction, I think the best play would be to increase later rookie contracts rather than decreasing early rookie contracts.

Of course, no party would ever go for that. The owners love their cheap labor. The current players wouldn't want to see their salaries cut at the expense of players who aren't in the league yet. As a result, it'll never happen... so cutting the cost of top draft picks so that everyone winds up being equally grossly underpaid seems like the next best thing. At least then the worst teams get to participate in the same value bonanza that the rest of the league gets.
You are in the minority...but you also have a (at least a small) point. I'd love to see a rookie cap with automatic escalators. IE: 50% raise if you make the pro-bowl type stuff. I don't honestly see how anyone can defend paying a rookie QB 10 million plus per year.
It certainly can be defended from an economic basis. A top pick QB gives the fans hope for the future which creates increased demand for the product. This allows teams to increase season ticket sales, raise ticket prices, generate more revenue from stadium advertising/sponsorships and help sell luxury boxes/premium seating. This could easily amount to more than $10 mil in additional revenue for the team.

 
PS: SSOG is definitely right. Even the famed Massey-Thaler study, which has been reported to show that high draft picks are a bad deal, actually shows that all draft picks are a good deal, but that the highest ones are not quite as good a deal as lower first-round picks. The high picks just seem overpaid because, for the majority of our lives following football, they've been so drastically underpaid.
:goodposting: I know I can always count on Drinen to back me up when I start talking crazy. :shrug:

 
vfourmax said:
Perhaps with the additional two games increase the roster spots by a few on each team to give a little added depth on the roster, start the season a couple of weeks earlier and maybe have two bye weeks instead of one to rest the players in season. Set the bye weeks to be by conference instead of random where say week 5 AFC was off and NFC plays all division games and week 6 Nfc was off and the Afc plays all divisional games. do the same again say week 12 and 13 with the NFC teams taking the first week off. Lot of different things they could incorporate to ease the burden of the extra two weeks of regular season games.
This was my thought when I came into the thread. Increasing the active roster sizes on gameday could help with injuries.

 
It's nice that Tom Brady and Ray Lewis worry about the future NFL players but if adding more games means more money to the players, then they'll go to 18 regular season games, it's just human nature.

Will FBG raise their rates since they'll be officially working 3 more weeks a year? If so, let me know so I can buy a 3 year subscription in 2012 at the 16 games rate.

TIA :(

 
Anthony Borbely said:
I sense the true salary cap is going to be gone. The players will get a salary minimum per franchise and the crazy owners like Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones will be able to spend a lot to ensure they have solid teams. I could see some sort of luxury tax on the high end being adopted.
If there is one thing that I am hoping is wrong in your list, it's this. I would bet money if they get rid of the cap, football would become a league of haves and have nots like baseball is. The big market teams would dominate and the competitive balance that to me makes the NFL great would be gone. Small market teams (like Buffalo or Jacksonville) would not stand a chance to keep their players when a Snyder or Jones can toss around millions like its going out of style and sign whoever they want like the Yankees do. I think it would be the worst possible thing that could happen to the NFL.
I strongly agree. :hifive:
 
I think the current season length is right. Adding three more weeks would bring the Super Bowl to late February.

I favor reducing the number of preseason games to 2, while keeping the season length at 16. The NFL starts Labor Day weekend, and ends the first weekend in February, just as the NBA & NHL are starting to heat up.

This is solely a fan's perspective, as I understand the economic reasons here.

 
Anthony Borbely said:
I sense the true salary cap is going to be gone. The players will get a salary minimum per franchise and the crazy owners like Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones will be able to spend a lot to ensure they have solid teams. I could see some sort of luxury tax on the high end being adopted.
If there is one thing that I am hoping is wrong in your list, it's this. I would bet money if they get rid of the cap, football would become a league of haves and have nots like baseball is. The big market teams would dominate and the competitive balance that to me makes the NFL great would be gone. Small market teams (like Buffalo or Jacksonville) would not stand a chance to keep their players when a Snyder or Jones can toss around millions like its going out of style and sign whoever they want like the Yankees do. I think it would be the worst possible thing that could happen to the NFL.
As long as revenue sharing remains you will not get situation as bad a baseball but football would move in that direction.
 
Anthony Borbely said:
I sense the true salary cap is going to be gone. The players will get a salary minimum per franchise and the crazy owners like Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones will be able to spend a lot to ensure they have solid teams. I could see some sort of luxury tax on the high end being adopted.
If there is one thing that I am hoping is wrong in your list, it's this. I would bet money if they get rid of the cap, football would become a league of haves and have nots like baseball is. The big market teams would dominate and the competitive balance that to me makes the NFL great would be gone. Small market teams (like Buffalo or Jacksonville) would not stand a chance to keep their players when a Snyder or Jones can toss around millions like its going out of style and sign whoever they want like the Yankees do. I think it would be the worst possible thing that could happen to the NFL.
As long as revenue sharing remains you will not get situation as bad a baseball but football would move in that direction.
Anything that moves football in the direction of baseball (with regard to haves and have-nots) is a bad thing. Baseball is like a blueprint of what not to do. I'm concerned any time I hear anything that makes it sound like the NFL will trend toward that system.
 
My two cents is I think having a deeper roster will be much more crucial. A little more RBBC, and maybe even WRBC, with even more O and D line rotation. You have to keep those guys fresh for the playoff run. One more thing to consider is that a perfect season is going to be that much harder to attain. Oh wait no salary cap. Scratch that. lol

 
As long as the NFL charges as much for preseason games as for regular season, and requires them to be purchased with season tickets, I'm in favor of converting preseason games to regular season games.

 
Personally I love it, the more football the better as far as I'm concerned

And despite all this talk about this making the season too long, we'll adapt, like someone else mentioned the current setup isn't the way it's always been. Heck there was a time when there were six preseason games and just nine reg. season games. I bet five years after the changes have been made, two preseason games and eighteen reg. season games will be fine with everyone

As for the charge that this is a money grab, I don't buy it. If they were adding two more games then ok but all they're doing is changing two preseason games to reg. season games and like GregR mentioned they already charge full price for preseason games

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I sense the true salary cap is going to be gone. The players will get a salary minimum per franchise and the crazy owners like Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones will be able to spend a lot to ensure they have solid teams. I could see some sort of luxury tax on the high end being adopted.
If there is one thing that I am hoping is wrong in your list, it's this. I would bet money if they get rid of the cap, football would become a league of haves and have nots like baseball is. The big market teams would dominate and the competitive balance that to me makes the NFL great would be gone. Small market teams (like Buffalo or Jacksonville) would not stand a chance to keep their players when a Snyder or Jones can toss around millions like its going out of style and sign whoever they want like the Yankees do. I think it would be the worst possible thing that could happen to the NFL.
I strongly agree. :moneybag:
I also agree.I am hoping the cap stays due to the fact that some of the small market teams (Pittsburgh, Green Bay, Indianapolis) have influence in the NFL verses MLB where no one gives a crap about the Pirates, Royals, A's, etc.
 
Personally I love it, the more football the better as far as I'm concernedAnd despite all this talk about this making the season too long, we'll adapt, like someone else mentioned the current setup isn't the way it's always been. Heck there was a time when there were six preseason games and just nine reg. season games. I bet five years after the changes have been made, two preseason games and eighteen reg. season games will be fine with everyoneAs for the charge that this is a money grab, I don't buy it. If they were adding two more games then ok but all they're doing is changing two preseason games to reg. season games and like GregR mentioned they already charge full price for preseason games
Oh, I definitely think making more money is part of the motivation. Full price for preseason but not full attendance or staying for the whole game... which means less money in concessions and merchandise. Extra money in broadcast rights as those 2 games that were likely just broadcast locally now could fall under the big network regular season deals.I don't think it's all about money, but I'm sure owners and players alike will make more money from the deal.
 
What will be the ramifications for this re: fantasy?

Most leagues already go dark Week 17 of the current NFL season, so if the NFL went to an 18 week regular season schedule, plus 2 bye weeks per team, there would be a 20 week NFL season.

If leagues stayed with the "dark the last week" idea, we would all go dark Week 20.

Most leagues, I believe, have a 3 week playoff setup (either 6 or 8 teams in playoffs), so that would/could take place during Weeks 17, 18 and 19 of the NFL season.

Thus, a 16 game regular season for fantasy?

 
Goodell hooking up with Madden seems disingenuous. Now he is a "man of the people". :wolf:

Goodell will take training camp tour on Madden’s bus

Posted by Michael David Smith on June 21, 2010 2:42 PM ET

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is planning a training camp tour this summer during which he’ll meet with fans and travel from camp to camp along with John Madden, riding the Madden Cruiser all the way.

Jason La Canfora of NFL Network reports that Goodell is finalizing an itinerary to travel to training camps with Madden this summer. The league says Goodell wants an opportunity to interact with fans and players and hear their ideas about how to make the game better.

It also stands to reason that Goodell wants as many fans and players as possible to hear his side of the story in the league’s ongoing labor negotiations with the players’ union. Getting fans to come to his side of the issue would be valuable to Goodell, and getting members of the players’ union to his side would be even more valuable.

After retiring from broadcasting, Madden was given the title of “Special Advisor to the Commissioner.” Soon he’ll also be the road trip companion of the commissioner.

 
To be perfectly honest, and I know that this is going to be a tremendous minority opinion, here... but I don't think the top rookie picks are overpaid. I think they're probably paid pretty accurately. If they were overpaid, no one would even TALK about trading up... yet every year someone's talking about trading up. I think the problem is that top rookie picks are accurately paid, while later rookie picks are grossly, grossly, grossly underpaid... which makes the later picks better values and makes the top picks stand out as "too expensive" (i.e. the #1 overall pick might be like buying a $100 bill for 4 twenties and three fives... while the #32 pick is like buying a $20 bill for a $5 bill straight up). The fact that the draft is really the only economically viable way to construct a roster (as well as the fact that the average NFL career length corresponds pretty strongly to the average rookie contract length) shows that rookie labor is currently underpriced. In terms of balance and maximizing the different methods of team construction, I think the best play would be to increase later rookie contracts rather than decreasing early rookie contracts.

Of course, no party would ever go for that. The owners love their cheap labor. The current players wouldn't want to see their salaries cut at the expense of players who aren't in the league yet. As a result, it'll never happen... so cutting the cost of top draft picks so that everyone winds up being equally grossly underpaid seems like the next best thing. At least then the worst teams get to participate in the same value bonanza that the rest of the league gets.
I can't see any fairness in giving a player $40 million as a signing bonus who has never played a down when great current players can't get that unless they are a proven superstar.
Rookies have played a down before. They've played thousands of downs, and they've never received a thin dime for any of them (unless they're Reggie Bush or Maurice Clarett).It's not about what's fair, it's about what's fair-market. #1 overall picks make more than great-but-not-superstar vets because #1 overall picks are BETTER than great-but-not-superstar vets and have a bigger impact on their respective franchises. Ndamakong Suh makes less than Albert Haynesworth, and I'd bet dollars to dimes that he has a bigger impact on the Lions than Haynesworth had on the Redskins. Was it fair for Albert to make all that money when Ndamakong will have a bigger impact at a smaller price? I think that the current going rate on top draft picks is pretty much exactly what they should be earning, based on the market set by free agency.

Besides, you want to talk about fair... is it fair that Chris Johnson got paid just half a million dollars last year while he was en route to rushing for 2,000 yards? Rookies outside of the top 10 are all grossly undercompensated. GROSSLY undercompensated. And in the next bargaining agreement, there'll likely be a stipulation that, in order to keep things fair, they're going to start undercompensating top draft picks just as grossly so the bad teams aren't disadvantaged.
As far as the bolded...a college down is a poor comparison. Tens of thousands of players play college football every year and you can't compare that to the approximately 1500 that play in the NFL. This is not a debate about college vs. the NFL anyways and it's apples and oranges in my opinion. I completely agree that a player like Chris Johnson is underpaid. But for every Chris Johnson there is a player that does not pan out. Also, my comments were more about the top end of round 1. Those players getting ridiculous guaranteed money without ever playing a down of professional football. They get bonuses like Peyton Manning. They get much bigger bonuses than the majority of all pro players that play at non QB positions. They get this just for being drafted. I just think it is ridiculous and really don't see how that is fair in any sense.

The bottom line to me is that I think a player should earn his contract by proving himself at the NFL level. A respectable rookie salary cap is definitely needed in my opinion.
:kicksrock: agree with Tony 100%. Put in a reasonable rookie salary range, make their contract for four years - the league already established a fund to enhance the pay of overproducing rookies...there is no doubt that rookie compensation at the top end of the draft is ridiculously high, IMO.
 
I usually take the side of labour and am still on the players side but I don't know if they'll have any leverage in any of the negotiations unless they are willing to strike and stay united. Now they may get a lot of public moral support if the owners try and ram a lot of changes that don't benefit the players but unless they are resolved to fight against these things the owners have the upper hand. I hope the owners aren't going to be too heavy handed but I'm sure they will get everything they want from the players with some smaller tidbits agreed to to save some face with the union. If the owners want a 18 game schedule they will get it. Same with a rookie cap. Or changes to the percentage paid to the players. I don't think the players union is a strong one.

The bigger fight might be between small market and big market owners.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top