Thread: Trotter: NFL won't expand season to 18 games

have mixed emotions on this- still HATE that teams will make STH pay for crap preseason and not sure w/o the added 2 games of national TV rvenue, where the union thinks higher salaries will come from..

I've kinda flipped on my liking an 18 game schedule. Would probably need 3 bye weeks, an expanded roster and in season IR's. They would also have to figure out the helmets; b/c the ones they use right now are just not capable of protecting the players.

Keep it at 16; or like Dan Patrick suggested, put in another bye week and add a week in the post season by having more wild card teams.

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

I've kinda flipped on my liking an 18 game schedule. Would probably need 3 bye weeks, an expanded roster and in season IR's. They would also have to figure out the helmets; b/c the ones they use right now are just not capable of protecting the players.

Keep it at 16; or like Dan Patrick suggested, put in another bye week and add a week in the post season by having more wild card teams.

Why 3 bye's?.. think 2 bye's fine with 18 games.. esp with 1 bye week for 16 games, an 2 for 18 already a big benefit.. why would they need to go to 3 for 18?.. what is the logic if 1 bye for 16 is the 'norm now"?


Agree about the expanded roster, and IR needs some "tweaking" anyway.

And NO WAY on more plyoff teams, already watered down and 6 of 16 make it( 37.5%), would not want to see 50% or more make it... just kills the reg season and value then

To me there's no question that expanding to 18 games would require larger rosters and more time off. Expecting your team to remain reasonably healthy through all 18 regular season games and/or up to 4 post season games is a wing and a prayer approach under the current set-up.

For my part I've never been in favor of an 18 game regular season. In an era where players make as much as they do and teams play under a salary cap I also think you'd need some cap exemptions for guys on IR so that you could find adequate replacements or keep adequate backup.

Moon: There are reasons for hope, but...

By John Mullin
CSNChicago.com

The reasons for optimism continue to flow out of Washington in the NFL/NFLPA talks even though a key in all of this, as we stress in virtually every collective bargaining story, is to realize that nothing is settled until it’s settled.

The latest, reported by Mike Freeman at CBSSports.com and elaborated on by Gregg Rosenthal at ProFootballTalk.com, is that some owners appear willing to open team books for examination as part of discussions on how much of a $1 billion sum the owners should receive based on needs and diminishing profits.

Not surprisingly, other owners remain opposed. But a difference of opinion on an issue likely shouldn’t be considered a fracturing in the ownership ranks. A league official told me that he had never seen owners so unified in thinking, and while some will inevitably take differing sides on an issue, disagreement shouldn’t necessarily be taken as dissension.
* * *

Good advice…but…

Former coach and current commentator Tony Dungy had a simple bit of advice for the two sides in the labor talks, but he also isn’t sure it’s possible, which is the bad news from someone with long, storied experience in the NFL.

Speaking with Mike Florio on ProFootballTalk.com’s “Live” show, Dungy underscored the obvious: “We’ve got to find the middle ground. And that’s where in the past the Dan Rooneys and Wellington Maras have been so good.” But he was not overwhelmingly optimistic for a simple reason: “My fear is that we don’t have enough Wellington Maras, Dan Rooneys, Gene Upshaws….”

We’ll see. With the number of owners streaming into the meetings, you have to hope (believe?) that the Maras and Rooneys slipped in among ‘em.

* * *

Kudos

Bears Vice Chairman George McCaskey, President Ted Phillips and former stars Richard Dent, Kurt Becker and Otis Wilson from 1980s teams are joining Illinois House Minority Leader Tom Cross (R-Oswego) and Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago) at Soldier Field to bring awareness and show support for legislation moving through the General Assembly to help address the issue of concussions in Illinois elementary and high schools. They’ll join members of the IHSA, Northwestern Memorial Hospital and other groups in drawing the spotlight to a problem that is now finally being recognized for the insidious specter it is.

Tags: nfl, nflpa, Chicago Bears, Tony Dungy, CBA

I'm in agreement with Maurice Smith when he says that if the NFLPA is gonna write the owners an $800 mil check they deserve some evidence of the owner's claims of need.

Originally Posted by soulman

I'm in agreement with Maurice Smith when he says that if the NFLPA is gonna write the owners an $800 mil check they deserve some evidence of the owner's claims of need.

I'm torn, and here's why.

As an business owner your employees don't know your books and unless the union wants to also open up the players finances and bank accounts before they sign any big deals, so the owners know how responsile the players are( which we know will never happen), how is that different?.

Also think it sets a very dangerous path, of players discussing which teams are "making money" and which teams may be in trouble, and players jumping ship and not signing with the teams "in trouble" and really killing balance in the league. Or the nonsense of team "A" making money, o therefore they can afford to way overpay me!

Have no problem with an independant 3rd party accounting firm looking at the numbers and making a general report and verifying the numbers of the 30 teams are correct( which is what think the league would agree to).. BUT there is absolutely no reason the players need all 32 teams detailed numbers to be spread around the players( which si what the union keeps insisting wants) which will of course quickly end up in not only the media's hands but other owner's who 'could" pontentially use it against a team knowing team "A" has a 2012 cash shortage so can bid up a player knowing can't match.

Agree on disclosure if asking for rebates on that 1 bill "offset", disagree strongly on the mechanics the union is asking- and if they just want a 3rd party accounting to look and verify i'd be all for that

I'd be more in favor of a third party verification too. The difference between an NFL player and your average employee is one of specialization. As a typical employee if your boss asked you to take a significant pay cut you could just refuse and take your skills elsewhere. The typical NFL player doesn't have that as an option.

I think the NFL owners make a big deal out of their so called "partnership" with the players when it suits their needs to publicly state that but in reality NFL players are the owners employees and basically chattel for the first three or four years of their careers. The only time they're free to seek employment with another team is if they're cut.

If it's truly a "partnership" as the owners like to imply then as partners the books should be open to both parties. Partnerships are based on a certain degree of trust and in this case very little exists between these parties.

Originally Posted by soulman

I'd be more in favor of a third party verification too. The difference between an NFL player and your average employee is one of specialization. As a typical employee if your boss asked you to take a significant pay cut you could just refuse and take your skills elsewhere. The typical NFL player doesn't have that as an option.

I think the NFL owners make a big deal out of their so called "partnership" with the players when it suits their needs to publicly state that but in reality NFL players are the owners employees and basically chattel for the first three or four years of their careers. The only time they're free to seek employment with another team is if they're cut.

If it's truly a "partnership" as the owners like to imply then as partners the books should be open to both parties. Partnerships are based on a certain degree of trust and in this case very little exists between these parties.

And that's the point it IS NOT A TRUE PARTNERSHIP and never will be.. there are 32 teams trying beat the crap out of the others, looking for *ANY* advantage, so in that sense not a real partnership, but 32 seperate entities with a common goal as a league.

Yes, they have in in Abstract a "partnership" on growing the Sport, growing the revenue's and making BOTH sides more money, but at the end of the day, you have 32 highly competitive Owner's hiring even more competitive staff's .. and have 1,000+ highly competitive players loooking out for themselves and competiting their whole lives to be the best.... And each of the 32 teams looking to screw the 31 other teams and each player on each team looking to beat the brains in ons unday of the opposing players... Its a voilitile mixture at best , of alpha dog's , used to getting their way trying to come to common ground.. and Just My opinion, 2nd the players knew all the Numbers and which were weak and strong teams, you become like the NBA nonsense, of players telling owner's where they want to play and screwing the fan bases and that would also suck.. and end up with a few "super teams" and rest 2nd tier crap

Have a 3rd party verify, but never give out the detailed info or the league will slide down the crap hole like basketbll has done and continues to do.. BTW the NBA has disclosure and it sure isn't helping them not have labor problems is it? So we KNOW that isn't the answer or solves a thing, just moves the argument to other things