2019 NFL Season: Super Bowl LIV

[dont care]

55 minutes ago, dfwabel said:

Adding two more regular season games would increase the salary cap automatically due to two more weeks of national TV games (and Total Football Revenue) as opposed to local broadcast of preseason games. Each national TV week gives the NFL approximately $250M, using the current contract.

But still that’s what $9M per team, that’s not enough to spread across another 20 or so backups that will now be needed plus’s now making backup qb’s that much more valuable they will ask for more money Ect. Back ups as a whole price tag will go up, even the benchwarmer and special teams players salary will go up. By my logic this will end up being a net negative to the league.

[BBTV]

12 hours ago, Tracy Jordan said:

 

That's exactly what teams would do, IMO. Coaches don't voluntarily mix their starters with second stringers in games they want to win, unless injuries force them to. There would be no way for the NFL to enforce teams to play certain starters and not others from week to week. The only logical strategy for teams to deal with such a stupid idea would be to either a) sit your first-stringers for a game or two early on in the season so that they can play the entire rest of the way or b) wait until later in the season but risk the possibility of losing meaningful games down the stretch.

 

This is mostly true.  They'd also probably sit their starters right before a bye week unless it was a "must win" game.

 

You might also see some "wink wink" deals between teams - like maybe they agree to play mostly 2nd string against each other if it's an interconference game that doesn't count for much (each game would count less in this situation, with interconference games being the least important.)

 

You would definitely not see a franchise QB playing behind a 2nd team line, or even a line that is mix-and-match between starters and bench guys.  

 

It's a ridiculous idea and whoever came up with it deserves to have their balls ripped straight off of their body so that they don't produce any ridiculously-stupid children.

[oldschoolvikings]

13 hours ago, Tracy Jordan said:

 

That's exactly what teams would do, IMO. Coaches don't voluntarily mix their starters with second stringers in games they want to win, unless injuries force them to. There would be no way for the NFL to enforce teams to play certain starters and not others from week to week. The only logical strategy for teams to deal with such a stupid idea would be to either a) sit your first-stringers for a game or two early on in the season so that they can play the entire rest of the way or b) wait until later in the season but risk the possibility of losing meaningful games down the stretch.

 

Well, no. The only the NFL could make   this rule "workable" is to mandate that every player on the roster has to be put on the inactive list for at least two games.  A team would just have to be strategic about how they did it. Wait for a player to get dinged, or sit a star going into the bye week.  How dumb would you feel if you sat all 22 starters in week three, then one week later your star receiver gets a hamstring that puts him out for two weeks anyway.

 

Again, I'm not advocating this goofy idea, but it seems obvious to me that the response would be to deal with it in a similar way to a baseball manager, manipulating his pitching staff.

 

 

[AustinFromBoston]

The NFL still refuses to admit they have an injury/concussion problem. 

So of course they see no issue whatsoever with asking players to play even more games. 

 

If they want to expand training camp/preseason that's 1 thing, but it's clearly not why they want to do this. 

[Kramerica Industries]

Looking forward to the Bucs being one of those teams that plays a disproportionate amount of backups, kinda like how NHL teams try to have their backup goaltenders start mostly against bad teams.

[BBTV]

2 hours ago, AustinFomBoston said:

The NFL still refuses to admit they have an injury/concussion problem. 

So of course they see no issue whatsoever with asking players to play even more games. 

 

If they want to expand training camp/preseason that's 1 thing, but it's clearly not why they want to do this. 

 

I'm guessing you didn't actually read anything that's been posted.

[AustinFromBoston]

3 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

I'm guessing you didn't actually read anything that's been posted.

So the NFL doesn't want an to expand the season? 

Remind me what I'm missing here then?

 

Even if they play their backup as glorified preseason, you're still risking injury to them, and what depth you have. 

 

 

[Quillz]

I've been hearing about an 18-game regular season for a long time now, at least since the start of the decade. It's just become one of those "I'll believe it when it happens" things. At this point, I don't think it will happen until the NFL expands (and they will have a full-time London team no matter how awful the idea is).

[BBTV]

16 hours ago, AustinFomBoston said:

So the NFL doesn't want an to expand the season? 

Remind me what I'm missing here then?

 

Even if they play their backup as glorified preseason, you're still risking injury to them, and what depth you have. 

 

 

 

Youre missing that they don’t want players playing more than 16 games. That’s a pretty big thing to miss, since that’s the whole reason we’re discussing this. 

 

Your post stated clearly that your issue was with the league asking players to play more games, which is not the case.  

[MJWalker45]

15 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Youre missing that they don’t want players playing more than 16 games. That’s a pretty big thing to miss, since that’s the whole reason we’re discussing this. 

 

Your post stated clearly that your issue was with the league asking players to play more games, which is not the case.  

I'd also say it could be the NFL saying one thing, "No more than 16 games", then pretending to "change their tune" when they realize that holding out healthy players starts getting compared to the NBA players sitting out. They want 18 games and don't really want to limit players to 16 games. What happens to teams that platoon players? Will the NFL change it to minutes per game played? 

[Tracy Jordan]

On 7/14/2019 at 11:04 AM, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Well, no. The only the NFL could make   this rule "workable" is to mandate that every player on the roster has to be put on the inactive list for at least two games.  A team would just have to be strategic about how they did it. Wait for a player to get dinged, or sit a star going into the bye week.  How dumb would you feel if you sat all 22 starters in week three, then one week later your star receiver gets a hamstring that puts him out for two weeks anyway.

 

Again, I'm not advocating this goofy idea, but it seems obvious to me that the response would be to deal with it in a similar way to a baseball manager, manipulating his pitching staff.

 

 

 

I can see where you're coming from, but I just think it's asking a lot for coaches to have to manage a rotation for all 22 starters. A coach would want to make as few substitutions as possible. Besides, I'm not sending my starting quarterback out there if I have to sit my starting left tackle or best offensive lineman. At the very least, I'd probably want all my starting lineman out for the same games along with my starting QB so that he doesn't get killed. But at the end of the day, injuries are unpredictable which is why I do agree that it would be dumb to sit out a star receiver prematurely if he winds up missing games later.

 

16 games in 17 weeks is perfectly fine as is. If the NFL wants to add more revenue, the only change that seems inevitable (aside from an 18 game schedule) is expanding the playoff pool from 12 teams to 16 teams. But nobody wants that either.

[Sykotyk]

Go to a16 game, 19 week season. Give every team three byes. You do cut down on total games per week but still increase the number of viewing windows. 

 

Players would love the extra rest. No more than 5 straight weeks for any one team. You can also time it with Thursday or Monday games. 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

4 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

Go to a16 game, 19 week season. Give every team three byes. You do cut down on total games per week but still increase the number of viewing windows. 

 

Players would love the extra rest. No more than 5 straight weeks for any one team. You can also time it with Thursday or Monday games. 

 

I love this idea.

[Wings]

I think they will expand the playoffs to 7 teams per conference with the #1 seeds getting a bye. 

[Dynasty]

6 hours ago, Wings said:

I think they will expand the playoffs to 7 teams per conference with the #1 seeds getting a bye. 

 

That sounds like what Cowboys fans would've said they wanted in the early 2010's.

[Quillz]

11 hours ago, Wings said:

I think they will expand the playoffs to 7 teams per conference with the #1 seeds getting a bye. 

That's kind of how the playoffs worked prior to 1991, when only five teams got in so just the #1 seed had a bye.

[MJWalker45]

16 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

Go to a16 game, 19 week season. Give every team three byes. You do cut down on total games per week but still increase the number of viewing windows. 

 

Players would love the extra rest. No more than 5 straight weeks for any one team. You can also time it with Thursday or Monday games. 

I think the old 2 byes a year worked but dragged the season out, 3 would be even worse. Best idea is to just scrap the 18 game schedule idea and admit it's a money grab and the league never really cared about it's players, no matter what they've said the last few years. 

[PittsburghSucks]

10 hours ago, Quillz said:

That's kind of how the playoffs worked prior to 1991, when only five teams got in so just the #1 seed had a bye.

 

That's not how it worked. Only 3 divisions back then. 2 wild card teams in each conference. So all 3 division champs were off on wild card Sunday. When they added a wild team in each conference in 1991 the 2 division winners with the best records got a bye.

[tBBP]

22 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

Go to a16 game, 19 week season. Give every team three byes. You do cut down on total games per week but still increase the number of viewing windows. 

 

Players would love the extra rest. No more than 5 straight weeks for any one team. You can also time it with Thursday or Monday games. 

 

For a few years I've advocated something similar...rather than trying to expand the regular season by two games, I say they actually should chop off a game on the tail end.  Three-game preseason, fifteen-game regular season, broken into thirds of five games apiece.

 

This way each team gets two byes..they can all take weeks six and twelve off and have two league-wide intermssion weeks, or stagger them so half the teams are off one week, and half the next--that'll eliminate the silliness of some teams having a bye currently in like week four and other dang near at week ten.

 

(But of course that'd cost the NFL $$$ so less than a zero percent chance that happens.)

[Sykotyk]

4 hours ago, Buc said:

 

For a few years I've advocated something similar...rather than trying to expand the regular season by two games, I say they actually should chop off a game on the tail end.  Three-game preseason, fifteen-game regular season, broken into thirds of five games apiece.

 

This way each team gets two byes..they can all take weeks six and twelve off and have two league-wide intermssion weeks, or stagger them so half the teams are off one week, and half the next--that'll eliminate the silliness of some teams having a bye currently in like week four and other dang near at week ten.

 

(But of course that'd cost the NFL $$$ so less than a zero percent chance that happens.)

But who gets 7 and who gets 8 home games each year? That's a problem. Plus a lot of contacts with stadiums have set minimum number of events and regular season games.