Proposed Solution to the 18 game season

Originally posted by chico49erfan:

Originally posted by TheFunkyChicken:

Originally posted by strickac:

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:

Originally posted by Paul:
17 game season

That's what they should do. Play 17 games. Play the one-off game in other countries or big cities where there are no football teams. Take the game to Mexico, Canada, Europe, LA, Sacramento, somewhere in Oklahoma, Nebraska, Nevada, Alabama etc. ams.

Reduce the pre-season to 2 games and continue with 1-bye week for the season.

17 won't work. The owners are all looking for another home game to increase revenues. That's why they want the extra 2 games (1 home, 1 away).

An increased roster is the answer. It's a slight increase in salary for the additional players, but the increased revenue for another game trumps that.

It's the best way, IMO, to keep the starters fresh all year.

I'm a big fan of increasing roster size, whether the go to 18 games or not.

Why force teams to carry fewer developmental players? Increasing rosters would benefit teams because they could afford extra bench/developmental/special teams players. And it would mean more jobs available for players. Making it possible for more football players to be pros here in the US.

Also, I'd really like to see them start a developmental league. If NFL teams could send players down to a minor league team and call them back up during the season, it would allow for a lot more fringe players to get the time they need to develop. And it would help to have players to call on if you have injuries.

USFL

You mean UFL.

If every team in the NFL had a "farm team" (that's years down the road of course), imagine the amount of cinderella stories of players coming from small schools.

Originally posted by jimrat201:
Bud Selig IS the worst commissioner in all of sports.

fixed.

Originally posted by strickac:

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:

Originally posted by Paul:
17 game season

That's what they should do. Play 17 games. Play the one-off game in other countries or big cities where there are no football teams. Take the game to Mexico, Canada, Europe, LA, Sacramento, somewhere in Oklahoma, Nebraska, Nevada, Alabama etc. ams.

Reduce the pre-season to 2 games and continue with 1-bye week for the season.

17 won't work. The owners are all looking for another home game to increase revenues. That's why they want the extra 2 games (1 home, 1 away).

An increased roster is the answer. It's a slight increase in salary for the additional players, but the increased revenue for another game trumps that.

It's the best way, IMO, to keep the starters fresh all year.

I understand, but why not just split the money for the 17th game evenly. They can sell out games in London, Berlin, Mexico City, etc. for higher ticket prices and can make huge TV deals with local stations when they have 8 games every season there. Sky Sports will pay them ridiculous amount of money to show 16 games in Europe.

Of course they want more games. 5 years from now, they will want 20 game season. But, quality is just as important. More games = more injuries. They can make a lot of money with just 16 game season. Get rid of the stupid Saturday Night games late in the season, and replace them Thursday night games every week during the season. Make NFL network available in more home - and show Thursday night games only on NFL network and they don't need 18 game seasons.

Originally posted by jimrat201:
Goodell may be the worst commissioner in all of sports.

According to the Mike Silver article and interview linked in the CBA thread, Goodell, along with Smith, have been the ones who have kept the hard-core in line and moved toward an agreement.

bring the practice squad to the full game roster 61 man now

Originally posted by fryet:
Make a rule that a player can only be on the 45 man game day roster for 16 games during the regular season. So 2 of the games, for every position, you will have to have another player play instead. One advantage of this, is the backup QB will get to play 2 games out of the year, and teams with great depth will be able to showcase their talent. The drawback is how many players will you need on a roster to support those extra 2 games? Also, presumably kicker/punter can be expected to play 18 games, as they often kick in preseason anyway, I believe.

Increasing roster size and allowing IR players back on after they recover would be a better answer.

There is no way that Indy or NE would sit still for Peyton or Brady to have to sit out a game in order to satisfy this rule. Having your journeyman left guard sit out a game is no big deal but to have to sit Frank Gore or Vernon Davis, both players with incentive bonuses in their contracts, will just not happen. Missing a game could cost them more in incentives than they gained by allowing the expanded schedule.

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by fryet:
Make a rule that a player can only be on the 45 man game day roster for 16 games during the regular season. So 2 of the games, for every position, you will have to have another player play instead. One advantage of this, is the backup QB will get to play 2 games out of the year, and teams with great depth will be able to showcase their talent. The drawback is how many players will you need on a roster to support those extra 2 games? Also, presumably kicker/punter can be expected to play 18 games, as they often kick in preseason anyway, I believe.

Increasing roster size and allowing IR players back on after they recover would be a better answer.

There is no way that Indy or NE would sit still for Peyton or Brady to have to sit out a game in order to satisfy this rule. Having your journeyman left guard sit out a game is no big deal but to have to sit Frank Gore or Vernon Davis, both players with incentive bonuses in their contracts, will just not happen. Missing a game could cost them more in incentives than they gained by allowing the expanded schedule.

First off, for everyone who says that a 16 game season is better, I am ok with that, but if the premise is how to make a 18 game season work, I think my proposal is viable.

The above argument about meeting incentives is not valid. If there is a rule that they can only play 16 games, then they have the same chance of meeting their incentives as any other player. They just plan their incentives based on a 16 game season - like they do now.

As for the new rule creating winners and losers, yes it would. So be it. Most rule changes will have a disparate impact on teams. If it is the rule is the rule, teams will adapt, just as they have been forced to with the rules about contact after 5 years, and not being able to get a QB's jersey dirty. The rule would be just one more thing that the teams would create strategies for.

As for not wanting to pay for games where the star players don't play - fans already do that for the exhibition season. This additional home game, even with some starters sitting, will still provide a better game than what we currently get in the exhibition season.

Originally posted by TheFunkyChicken:
Another interesting solution I heard was to go to a 17 game season, with each team playing one international game per year.

That international game could be in London, Canada, Mexico or wherever.

It would solve a few issues at once.

It's a perfect compromise between 16 and 18 games.

It would bring enough games to London to keep them from needing their own team.

And it would be the end of teams losing a home game because they have to play abroad.

And it would give all teams an equal chance to gain international appeal.

All teams would either end the season as winners or losers. No more .500 teams.


Honestly, I'd much rather just keep it simple at stick with 16 games. But I do think that this 16 domestic plus 1 international game is a pretty innovative way to make a deal that both sides might go for.

I like this better than any idea I've heard thus far. Maybe have two consecutive weeks midseason where 1/2 the teams are on a bye and the other half (8 games) are playing internationally. I wonder if there's enough international demand to support that?