Roger Goodell: Owners want 18 games

[Denver Native (Carol)]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5497448

ATLANTA -- NFL owners are eager to increase the regular season from 16 to 18 games.

The players aren't so sure.

During a five-hour meeting at a posh hotel in downtown Atlanta, the push to add two more games to the regular season picked up steam Wednesday -- at least among those who sign the checks.

"I think it's a win-win all around," said Bob Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots.

The owners also unanimously approved Stan Kroenke's proposal to purchase majority ownership of the St. Louis Rams, assuming he turns over control of two other teams he owns -- the NBA's Denver Nuggets and the NHL's Colorado Avalanche -- to his son.

Kroenke owns 40 percent of the downtrodden Rams and exercised his right to purchase the rest of the team from the Rosenbloom family for a reported $750 million.

"Obviously, all of us know and respect Stan," commissioner Roger Goodell said. "He's been a terrific owner in the NFL and we're confident he will continue to be a great owner."

Kroenke must turn over operational and financial control of the Nuggets and Avalanche to his 30-year-old son, Josh, by the end of the year. He must give up his majority stake in the teams by December 2014 to meet NFL rules against cross-ownership of franchises in other NFL cities.

But talks on the expanded season dominated most of the meeting.

Goodell pointed out that the league already has the right to impose an 18-game schedule -- and keep four preseason games for each team -- under the current labor agreement with the players. But that contract expires after this season, and it's clear the expanded schedule will be a central issue in talks on a new collective bargaining agreement.

The owners would like to keep the season at 20 weeks, reducing the number of preseason games from four to two.

"We want to do it the right way for everyone, including the players, the fans and the game in general," Goodell said. "There's a tremendous amount of momentum for it. We think it's the right step."

The owners held off on voting on a specific proposal that could be presented to the players union. Among the issues that still must be resolved: when to start the expanded regular season, possible roster expansion to cope with more games and changes in training camp and offseason routines to come up with ways for evaluating younger players who wouldn't have as many preseason games to make an impression.

"We want to continue to address a variety of issues before putting together a specific proposal, which our negotiating team will provide to the union's negotiating team," Goodell said. "There's tremendous support for it. Almost all the questions, all the discussions, are how to do it in a way that's fan-friendly."

Around the NFL, however, many players questioned the wisdom of making an already grueling season even longer. At the very least, they want more money -- and several proposed changes in the rules governing injured players or adding an extra bye week to deal with the grind.

"With 16 games, every game is important and therefore the fans are very into it, the stadiums are packed because they know if their team loses, it pushes them further and further away from making the playoffs," Cincinnati Bengals quarterback Carson Palmer said. "I think if you go to 18, each game kind of loses a little bit of its significance."

The players clearly expect to be receive a bigger chunk of the multibillion-dollar NFL pie if they're going to be putting their bodies on the line in two more games that count.

"Obviously the players want to be compensated for two more games," San Francisco 49ers linebacker Matt Wilhelm said. "That's the one thing the players have to get met."

They are also concerned about an increased risk of injuries and fret that it could shorten their careers or increase the number of health problems they endure after retirement.

"I would vote to eliminate two preseason games and then keep it at a 16-game season because the longer you're out there playing, the more your body breaks down," Chicago Bears tight end Desmond Clark said. "When you get into December, you're like walking zombies. You can't feel your joints."

Cleveland Browns linebacker Scott Fujita said the timing of the proposal is odd, considering the owners want the players to accept a smaller share of the revenue in the next labor agreement.

"They are asking you to play more games and put yourself at more risk, and they are also asking us to take a pay cut," he said. "That's a lot to ask. All those things don't make a whole lot of sense. We need to sit down and talk through it all and find out what it is they're really trying to do and see if it makes sense or not."

But Kraft said the expanded season is the most obvious step to bring in more money while the economy is struggling.

"I really think going to an 18-game season is critical to us getting a labor deal," he said. "There's not a lot ways in this economic environment we can generate incremental revenues. That's the best way.

"The other thing," he added, "our fans have said pretty loud and clear they'd like us to have fewer preseason games."

Several players and coaches have pointed out that having only two preseason games would likely make it more difficult for fringe players to get enough of a look to make the team.

Already, teams have been experimenting with joint workouts in training camp, believing those sessions could help replace the shorter preseason. This year, for instance, the Atlanta Falcons worked out with both the Patriots and Jacksonville Jaguars.

"If it was a two-game preseason, then the starters are going to see most of that time because they've got to get ready for the season, so if you're third string, good luck," said Indianapolis linebacker Gary Brackett, the Colts' defensive captain. "When I was a rookie, I needed every bit of those four games."

But some figure it's a foregone conclusion that the owners will get their way.

"Personally, I don't see how it helps the game, or the quality of the game," said Barry Cofield, a defensive tackle for the New York Giants. "But if they demand it, they will probably get it."

[Ravage!!!]

Seems the owners don't really want it... since they shot it down pretty handedly. Gooddell was really pushing this, and it seems the owners didn't want it, so it very well be put off to at LEAST 2012.

Personally... I don't want it.

[sneakers]

Rodger Goodell can eat my ass.

[CrazyHorse]

They didn't vote on it because there's no collective bargaining agreement for the coming year. The Broncos can be the first team to go 21-0.

[broncofaninfla]

As bad as the Broncos have been finishing lately, I almost fear two additional games. It's been straight up embarrassing...

[Lonestar]

read or heard somewhere that they can do this BECAUSE the CBA has up to 22 games in it without renegotiating it.

this is a done deal.

[JaxBroncoGirl]

As bad as the Broncos have been finishing lately, I almost fear two additional games. It's been straight up embarrassing...

I understand the disappointment in the 2 preseason games, but this is where we work out the kinks, getting the injured healed and ready to play the season. I am not an Orton lover or dislike the guy, we need to get our OL ready to give him time to get the play off. The defense well we need 3 more preseason games to see what they are going to bring to the field. Gods Speed, Go Broncos:welcome:

[Lonestar]

I understand the disappointment in the 2 preseason games, but this is where we work out the kinks, getting the injured healed and ready to play the season. I am not an Orton lover or dislike the guy, we need to get our OL ready to give him time to get the play off. The defense well we need 3 more preseason games to see what they are going to bring to the field. Gods Speed, Go Broncos:welcome:

But then all of the teams are on the same scale.

Instead of playing your starters in bits and pieces for 4 games you play them more in the two games.

I'll bet that the starters play less than 50% of the snaps in PS now.

give them a week between PS and regular season to heal bumps and bruises from those 2 games. Or start the bye weeks sooner.

[T.K.O.]

i thought the cba expired after this season ?

[Ravage!!!]

If its something that could NOT be voted on and agreed to by the coaches, then Goodell wouldn't have been disappointed that it didn't "pass" through the owners. Why would it have been brought up by the commissioner to be voted on, if it couldn't even pass if they wanted it??? he wouldn't have. ITs not like Goodell doesn't know the CBA inside and out.

There is a lot of downside to the 18 games. Don't think for a moment that this is purely a "done deal" simply because Goodell wants it.

[Northman]

If you think about it and the current situation for the Broncos at the moment this would be a very bad idea. When it comes to football every game really is important and too start off sluggishly because of injuries or lack of chemistry can hurt your chances for the postseason, etc. Then you got to take in the fact that these preseason games are where coaches determine the players they plan to keep and although TC helps in that area it isnt in a live game enviroment like the preseason is. I mean, i know Goodell thinks this is a great move from a financial standpoint but do they really need more money right now? I dont think the NFL is hurting when it comes to economics.

[Ravage!!!]

If you think about it and the current situation for the Broncos at the moment this would be a very bad idea. When it comes to football every game really is important and too start off sluggishly because of injuries or lack of chemistry can hurt your chances for the postseason, etc. Then you got to take in the fact that these preseason games are where coaches determine the players they plan to keep and although TC helps in that area it isnt in a live game enviroment like the preseason is. I mean, i know Goodell thinks this is a great move from a financial standpoint but do they really need more money right now? I dont think the NFL is hurting when it comes to economics.

I truly believe that the pre-season games aren't really needed to determine your roster. I know I've heard coaches say that they know 95% of who's going to be on the team before pre-season even starts. So I personally don't think the ps-games make that much of a difference as far as THAT goes.

But I think Herm Edwards made some great points. He said that if you are going to increase the games, then they should increase the number of people that can be on the practice squad..f rom 8 to 12. Then he made a good point that instead of being able to only dresss 48 on game-day... they should move that to the 53 that is on the active roster (which is a stupid rule anywah, to let you have 53 on active roster, but only 48 can dress?).

Also... people have to see what it could do to the longevity of players in the league. Think about it, 2 extra games means that a RB that plays just 8 years has a full extra season already played. So the age of RB starting to deteriorate used to be age 29-30. That very well could drop to 27-28.

Do we go to two bye weeks now? I HATED the 2 bye week system before, but feel that we'll have to have 2 bye's with 18 games. Thats just another week added on.

I personally am not a fan, and realize that there is a possibility for owners to make another 2 games worth of revenue.... but I'm also one that believes the reason the NFL is so successful is that teh season is short. Its fast, its 16 games and it doesn't burn people out. Will it burn out with 18 games? Probably not. If it moves to 18 games, I'm of course going to watch. But I'm not a proponent of the change.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Although I agree that I have also heard that the coaches sometimes have their minds made up on some of the players they will not keep before preseason games start, if the preseason games are cut to two - is that really enough time to determine who the actual players will be for the regular season, plus is it enough time for the new players to learn the system, in an actual game situation? Right now, the common thing is for starters to play very little in the first two preseason games, then the starters play most of the 3rd preseason game, and then the rest of the players mainly play the 4th preseason game to determine the final roster. How can that be accomplished with two preseason games?

[BroncoWave]

I have heard SEVERAL players say that if not for 4 preseason games, they would never have had a chance to prove themselves to the coaches and make the roster. Schlereth was a notable one who said that. Also, remember that big hit that TD made in the preseason to make a name for himself? What if he's never gotten a chance to do that. Rod Smith was also undrafted. What if he'd never had enough preseason games to prove himself? I think it would be a HUGE mistake on so many levels to cut 2 preseason games and expand to 18 games. It just doesn't make any sense to me at all and it sickens me that it's probably going to happen.

[Lonestar]

Although I agree that I have also heard that the coaches sometimes have their minds made up on some of the players they will not keep before preseason games start, if the preseason games are cut to two - is that really enough time to determine who the actual players will be for the regular season, plus is it enough time for the new players to learn the system, in an actual game situation? Right now, the common thing is for starters to play very little in the first two preseason games, then the starters play most of the 3rd preseason game, and then the rest of the players mainly play the 4th preseason game to determine the final roster. How can that be accomplished with two preseason games?
:salute:
The wise money says the coaches know who is going to make the team or not before the first games is played in preseason. with perhaps the exception of 4-6 spots.

They see enough in the OTA's, film study and weight room and TC to know probably 50 of the 53 and PS players.

Occasionally some one will stickout in a game like TD did back in Japan that first year. But that is rare.


With 18 games they are going to up the limit a few players or relax the IR rules. So they can carry enough players to cover for the injuries that happen during the year.

[BroncoWave]

Occasionally some one will stickout in a game like TD did back in Japan that first year. But that is rare.

It may be rare but if not for TD the Broncos are still searching for their first championship. That wouldn't have been possible without preseason games.

[Northman]

I have heard SEVERAL players say that if not for 4 preseason games, they would never have had a chance to prove themselves to the coaches and make the roster. Schlereth was a notable one who said that. Also, remember that big hit that TD made in the preseason to make a name for himself? What if he's never gotten a chance to do that. Rod Smith was also undrafted. What if he'd never had enough preseason games to prove himself? I think it would be a HUGE mistake on so many levels to cut 2 preseason games and expand to 18 games. It just doesn't make any sense to me at all and it sickens me that it's probably going to happen.

I was getting ready to bring up TD. TD made that hit in the 2nd preseason game but wasnt put into the starting lineup until after he had proven himself more in the last 2 preseason games. Again, i think the live enviroment is a better indication as too who wants to play ball and who doesnt. Cutting down the preseason is just a bad idea in my opinion on so many levels. I almost get the feeling the Goodell is just trying to change things for the sake of his name.

[BroncoWave]

I was getting ready to bring up TD. TD made that hit in the 2nd preseason game but wasnt put into the starting lineup until after he had proven himself more in the last 2 preseason games. Again, i think the live enviroment is a better indication as too who wants to play ball and who doesnt. Cutting down the preseason is just a bad idea in my opinion on so many levels. I almost get the feeling the Goodell is just trying to change things for the sake of his name.

Agreed. You really don't know what you have in a late pick or UDFA unless you can see him in live game action. Cutting down the preseason would make alot more of those diamonds in the rough slip through the cracks IMO.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

:salute:
The wise money says the coaches know who is going to make the team or not before the first games is played in preseason. with perhaps the exception of 4-6 spots.

They see enough in the OTA's, film study and weight room and TC to know probably 50 of the 53 and PS players.

Occasionally some one will stickout in a game like TD did back in Japan that first year. But that is rare.


With 18 games they are going to up the limit a few players or relax the IR rules. So they can carry enough players to cover for the injuries that happen during the year.

Take the Broncos' injury situation thus far in training camp and preseason. Right now, they have no idea which RBs will be ready for regular season. If two preseason games was in affect this year, how would the coaches determine who the RBs will be? Most likely, they would have to hold on to all or most of the RBs, and cut a few players, which under different circumstances, would be kept.

[slim]

As bad as the Broncos have been finishing lately, I almost fear two additional games. It's been straight up embarrassing...

But what if they add the two new games to the beginning of the schedule, instead of the end?

Think about.

[Lonestar]

Take the Broncos' injury situation thus far in training camp and preseason. Right now, they have no idea which RBs will be ready for regular season. If two preseason games was in affect this year, how would the coaches determine who the RBs will be? Most likely, they would have to hold on to all or most of the RBs, and cut a few players, which under different circumstances, would be kept.

All having 2 preseason games does is move up the cut down date. and that means there will be other RB on the market sooner.

RB are a dime a dozen so I'm not all that sure that this is a problem.

It is not a mentally intensive spot on the team, not like WR, QB or CB.

You line up and either run the ball, block or go out in the flat for a pass.

there is a lot of talent that will get cut.

Everyone in the NFL has the same issues the playing field is just as level after 4 PS games as 2.

[Ravage!!!]

I was getting ready to bring up TD. TD made that hit in the 2nd preseason game but wasnt put into the starting lineup until after he had proven himself more in the last 2 preseason games. Again, i think the live enviroment is a better indication as too who wants to play ball and who doesnt. Cutting down the preseason is just a bad idea in my opinion on so many levels. I almost get the feeling the Goodell is just trying to change things for the sake of his name.

Possibly... but we don't really know if TD wouldn't have been recognized for something else. His talent was evident. That play MAY have brought him to the attention, but it can't be said that something else wouldn't have done the same thing. Look at Kurt Warner. How many pre-season games did he go through and not be recognized until he got a shot simply because a player ahead of him was injured?

Rod Smith made it from the practice squad, and it wasn't a "particular" play that did it..but just HIS play in practice.

[Poet]

I want this to happen. More football = better. It also means that fans with season tickets don't have to pay for worthless games.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Thought this was a good place to put this, as Brian is talking about the possibility of an 18 game season.

http://www.1043thefan.com/channels/audioOnDemand/Story.aspx?ID=1270553

[HORSEPOWER 56]

I can't believe I'm saying it, but I agree with jr and King on this one. More football = GOOD!

Not to mention, it isn't like it used to be when the season ended and the players went home and didn't get together again until training camp. You've got OTAs, voluntary min-camps, and mandatory mini-camps throughout the offseason. If you don't know by the end of training camp what your team roster really looks like, you haven't been scouting properly or doing your homework as a coaching staff. It's not like the 5-10 bubble players fighting for a job are the ones skipping these offseason activities!

If there's so much clamor for the 5-10 bubble guys, then how about you just don't play the starters at all in the preseason? Or maybe give them one series. Use the preseason to evaluate the guys you might have ??? about. Are any of the guys that are hurt and haven't taken a snap really on the bubble other than maybe Brandon Stokely who was on the bubble from the start of camp, anyway? If Orton hadn't played a single snap this preseason would it put his job in jeopardy? Of course not. You know who your starters are. The preseason is only really good for one thing... getting your starters hurt in games that mean nothing while trying desperately to find that one diamond in the rough.

I don't care about what the owners, players, or coaches really think. The NFL is about the fans. Give them what they want. I'd bet if the decision was left up to the fans, they'd be overwhelmingly in favor of expanding the season.

[horsepig]

How would you like to be in Stokely's shoes? The guy is always on the bubble.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

How would you like to be in Stokely's shoes? The guy is always on the bubble.

It's like Rod Smith used to say, "You can't make the club if you're in the tub". IF he can't stay healthy enough to play, why keep him? We're not a charity.

[BroncoWave]

I don't care about what the owners, players, or coaches really think. The NFL is about the fans. Give them what they want. I'd bet if the decision was left up to the fans, they'd be overwhelmingly in favor of expanding the season.

Couldn't disagree more. The fans should have NO say in something as major as this. Lots of fans think more games will better but I think they are wrong. More games = more wear and tear = more injuries = a worse product. Players aren't stupid. They know what those extra games will do to their bodies.

And the "NFL is about the fans, give them what they want" argument is really bad IMO. If that were the case, what's the point in even having a commissioner or an NFL league office? Just put everything up to the fans vote. What if you used this logic for companies? No point in having presidents or CEOs, just let the consumers vote on everything. See the flaw in your logic? Fans are irrational and should not be deciding how a multi-billion dollar business is run.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

It may be rare but if not for TD the Broncos are still searching for their first championship. That wouldn't have been possible without preseason games.

For some strange reason I just don't believe that just because he made one big hit on special teams in a preseason game that he was instantly elevated to starting RB. That was our first real glimpse of TD. Shanahan knew what he had. Rod Smith was on the practice squad for awhile before he cracked the active roster so it's not like some magical preseason game clinched his spot on the roster, either.

[BroncoWave]

For some strange reason I just don't believe that just because he made one big hit on special teams in a preseason game that he was instantly elevated to starting RB. That was our first real glimpse of TD. Shanahan knew what he had. Rod Smith was on the practice squad for awhile before he cracked the active roster so it's not like some magical preseason game clinched his spot on the roster, either.

And I never said it was just that one big hit. But had he not had 4 preseason games to prove himself, he may never make the roster. We'll obviously never know but like I said, without TD we are still waiting on our first title.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

In the interview I posted in this thread with Brian Dawkins talking about this, he brought up some very good points from a player's perspective.

[Bosco]

If I'm the players union, I'm telling the NFL to **** off unless they're bringing a substantial pay raise for my players.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

Couldn't disagree more. The fans should have NO say in something as major as this. Lots of fans think more games will better but I think they are wrong. More games = more wear and tear = more injuries = a worse product. Players aren't stupid. They know what those extra games will do to their bodies.

And the "NFL is about the fans, give them what they want" argument is really bad IMO. If that were the case, what's the point in even having a commissioner or an NFL league office? Just put everything up to the fans vote. What if you used this logic for companies? No point in having presidents or CEOs, just let the consumers vote on everything. See the flaw in your logic? Fans are irrational and should not be deciding how a multi-billion dollar business is run.

I see a lot of people talking about injuries, but don't just as many injuries occur in those worthless preseason games? Personally, I think you have the same chance being injured on the first snap of the season as the last. Pro hockey players play 82 games in a physical contact sport. They have to deal with the potential for injury just like NFL players do. Change the rules on roster size and IR if need be, but more games would be good for the league. The bottom line is, the players will still play the same # of games. The only difference is 2 more of those games will count for something. There's a depth chart for a reason. Every player in the league is only a heartbeat away from an injury.

In case you didn't already know this, human beings are LAZY. Of course the players are against this. It means they have to do a little more work for the same $. If your boss told you you had to work 2 more hours per week for the same $, you'd probably be upset, too.

[Lonestar]

Agreed. You really don't know what you have in a late pick or UDFA unless you can see him in live game action. Cutting down the preseason would make alot more of those diamonds in the rough slip through the cracks IMO.

Ive read that the coaches KNOW who are players and who are not from the OTA's and training camp.

Very few surprises in preseason.

But then everyone will be playing from the same playbook won't they. It is not like some team will have 4 games and we will only have 2.

[Lonestar]

If I'm the players union, I'm telling the NFL to **** off unless they're bringing a substantial pay raise for my players.

As I said earlier the OWNERS can play them up to 22 games a year as stated in the current CBA.

The Owners will negotiate some money as well as other incentives, including a larger roster.

[BroncoWave]

I see a lot of people talking about injuries, but don't just as many injuries occur in those worthless preseason games? Personally, I think you have the same chance being injured on the first snap of the season as the last. Pro hockey players play 82 games in a physical contact sport. They have to deal with the potential for injury just like NFL players do. Change the rules on roster size and IR if need be, but more games would be good for the league. The bottom line is, the players will still play the same # of games. The only difference is 2 more of those games will count for something. There's a depth chart for a reason. Every player in the league is only a heartbeat away from an injury.

In case you didn't already know this, human beings are LAZY. Of course the players are against this. It means they have to do a little more work for the same $. If your boss told you you had to work 2 more hours per week for the same $, you'd probably be upset, too.

I see you ignored the second part of my post. You know I'm right about that. Letting fans decide anything is never a good idea. The NFL didn't become a multi-billion dollar empire by letting fans decide things.

As for the second part of your post, you are full of shit if you are saying that you wouldn't be upset if you had to work more hours for the same pay. The players have every single right to be upset about that too. Football is a violent sport and if they are going to make the players do even more damage to their bodies, they should be compensated fairly.

[BroncoWave]

As I said earlier the OWNERS can play them up to 22 games a year as stated in the current CBA.

Seeing as this is the last year of the current CBA that is kinda irrelevant. I'm sure that will be a big negotiating point in the new one though.

[Bosco]

Seeing as this is the last year of the current CBA that is kinda irrelevant. I'm sure that will be a big negotiating point in the new one though.

That, and the 22 games are already covered with preseason, regular season and playoffs.

[Lonestar]

I can't believe I'm saying it, but I agree with jr and King on this one. More football = GOOD!

Not to mention, it isn't like it used to be when the season ended and the players went home and didn't get together again until training camp. You've got OTAs, voluntary min-camps, and mandatory mini-camps throughout the offseason. If you don't know by the end of training camp what your team roster really looks like, you haven't been scouting properly or doing your homework as a coaching staff. It's not like the 5-10 bubble players fighting for a job are the ones skipping these offseason activities!

If there's so much clamor for the 5-10 bubble guys, then how about you just don't play the starters at all in the preseason? Or maybe give them one series. Use the preseason to evaluate the guys you might have ??? about. Are any of the guys that are hurt and haven't taken a snap really on the bubble other than maybe Brandon Stokely who was on the bubble from the start of camp, anyway? If Orton hadn't played a single snap this preseason would it put his job in jeopardy? Of course not. You know who your starters are. The preseason is only really good for one thing... getting your starters hurt in games that mean nothing while trying desperately to find that one diamond in the rough.

I don't care about what the owners, players, or coaches really think. The NFL is about the fans. Give them what they want. I'd bet if the decision was left up to the fans, they'd be overwhelmingly in favor of expanding the season.


MY HS PE coach was a Bronco lineman Eldon Daninhuer SP great big guy, had to hold down a second job and training camp back then was more for getting the players into shape than learning new plays.

Today they has a pleura of camps and office season fitness programs, as well as access to the facility to workout and study film year round.

TWO less games in Preseason means squat.

More football, more football more football. less off season hearing from folks that are grumpy and want the season to start already.

[Lonestar]

That, and the 22 games are already covered with preseason, regular season and playoffs.

so changing 2 of them to ones that count fits real nice correct?

[Bosco]

so changing 2 of them to ones that count fits real nice correct?

Sure, if the league wants to pay the players for two more regular season games.

[BroncoWave]

Sure, if the league wants to pay the players for two more regular season games.

Exactly. If the league tries to add 2 more games but not pay the players more, we are gonna be in for a loooong lockout.

[Lonestar]

Sure, if the league wants to pay the players for two more regular season games.

if they sell them OUT and then if they get TV revenue for them they still are ahead of the deal.

Right now they are not getting much TV revenue and well none of the stadiums I have seen this year are remotely full. so revenues from parking, concession are down also.

they make money and give some out that is capitalism at its best.

[Bosco]

Exactly. If the league tries to add 2 more games but not pay the players more, we are gonna be in for a loooong lockout.

I doubt the 18 game season happens to be honest.

[Lonestar]

Exactly. If the league tries to add 2 more games but not pay the players more, we are gonna be in for a loooong lockout.

not a chance of a long lockout the players have bills to pay they were not smart like the owners who are being paid by the TV contracts whether they play or not.

there will be a show but then the players will cave most of them are morons that have spent everything coming in and bought houses and cars they have to make payments on. just how many of them are going to let the bank repo their ride.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

About the only smart one was logan Mankins he has saved most of the & million he has revived so far looking to hold out this year.

[Lonestar]

I doubt the 18 game season happens to be honest.

who is going to stop them they have it in writing already from the union.

They approved it the other day correct?

[HORSEPOWER 56]

I see you ignored the second part of my post. You know I'm right about that. Letting fans decide anything is never a good idea. The NFL didn't become a multi-billion dollar empire by letting fans decide things.

As for the second part of your post, you are full of shit if you are saying that you wouldn't be upset if you had to work more hours for the same pay. The players have every single right to be upset about that too. Football is a violent sport and if they are going to make the players do even more damage to their bodies, they should be compensated fairly.

I'm a salary employee. I'm also military. I work until I am allowed to leave. My sympathy level for millionaires playing 2 more games = 0.

As for the original comment, yes, I know giving the fans ultimate power over NFL decisions would be foolish. My point was simply that the NFL should cater to its fans over its whiny billionaire owners and its whiny millionaire players none of whom would have anywhere near that amount if not for the fans.

[Lonestar]

Seeing as this is the last year of the current CBA that is kinda irrelevant. I'm sure that will be a big negotiating point in the new one though.

It is impossible for the players to try and take back something they have already given up. there is no strength in the NFLPA they are 600 plus different voices. that all have bills to pay.

None of them thought past the last paycheck they spend instead of invest we see it every day some past superstar broke.

The owners on the other hand have mortgage payments to make but they are being paid their TV contracts whether there are games or NOT.

Let me repeat this..they are being paid their TV contracts whether there are games or NOT.

who is going to cave first? the superstar that the fiance company is picking up his fancy ride or the Owner that has income coming in. it will never get to 2012 about half way through the season (if that) the player will cave.

[Bosco]

who is going to stop them they have it in writing already from the union.

They approved it the other day correct?

Without diving into the legalese in the CBA, it's going to be hard to get specific. That said, I'm willing to bet there is something in there specifying the breakdown of the games. Probably why suspended players like LenDale and Big Ben can play the preseasons but have to sit out regular season games.

Even if that's not the case, the CBA is up at the end of this year, and it's too late now. Implementing this is going to require Union approval, and they won't give that without a pay raise to show for it.

[Lonestar]

Without diving into the legalese in the CBA, it's going to be hard to get specific. That said, I'm willing to bet there is something in there specifying the breakdown of the games. Probably why suspended players like LenDale and Big Ben can play the preseasons but have to sit out regular season games.

Even if that's not the case, the CBA is up at the end of this year, and it's too late now. Implementing this is going to require Union approval, and they won't give that without a pay raise to show for it.

Never said they would not get paid but then right now the players only get a few thousand dollars for preseason anyway.

but this is a done deal the owners have all the power in this relationship.

[Bosco]

Never said they would not get paid but then right now the players only get a few thousand dollars for preseason anyway.

but this is a done deal the owners have all the power in this relationship.

What power? We're already in week 3 of the preseason and whatever changes they make to the current CBA are gonna be null and void in 6 months.

[BroncoWave]

I'm a salary employee. I'm also military. I work until I am allowed to leave. My sympathy level for millionaires playing 2 more games = 0.

As for the original comment, yes, I know giving the fans ultimate power over NFL decisions would be foolish. My point was simply that the NFL should cater to its fans over its whiny billionaire owners and its whiny millionaire players none of whom would have anywhere near that amount if not for the fans.

I just think the average fan is too ignorant to have any input on things like that. Besides, most of the polls I have seen have a pretty even split on the issue so even if they were to cater to fans there would have to be an overwhelming majority to do so and that just isn't the case.

[Magnificent Seven]

Hell Yeah! 18 games!!!!

[Nomad]

My sympathy level for millionaires playing 2 more games = 0.

As for the original comment, yes, I know giving the fans ultimate power over NFL decisions would be foolish. My point was simply that the NFL should cater to its fans over its whiny billionaire owners and its whiny millionaire players none of whom would have anywhere near that amount if not for the fans.

Agreed! Any pay raises always comes back on the fan! I don't mind seeing them get a pay raise just nothing too ridiculous! NFL needs to restructure the rookie scale (stop with the ridiculous 'guaranteed' payouts and contracts) and take some of that dough and give it to proven players! Then again I don't believe any player out there is worth over $100 mill and $50 mill guaranteed!!

To answer the topic of the thread.......I'm down with 18 games.

[CrazyHorse]

I like the schedule we have now. What would be the 2 extra games added? I'd rather see them mandatory schedule some division games at the end of the season to prevent teams from sitting their starters.

[Nomad]

Here's a take on the subject!

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/08/27/a-case-for-17-games-not-18/#more

[Sconnie Bronco]

A few things:

* Why were they charging full price for preseason games to begin with? If theyre admitting that was wrong, maybe they should be giving refunds for the past few years. I realize its not realistic but if theyre going to get into the morality of charging full price for preseason games, its worth throwing out there. And if theyre admitting its wrong to do this, then are the 2 remaining preseason games going to be full price? If so, this is a lot of hot air.

* There are a variety of reasons that Goodell would want to do this and one of them is that it somehow relates with trying to expand the game to foreign countries by exporting regular season games. If they add 2 regular season games, cities arent losing a home game so they can export regular season games.

* The NFL wants to move into February because there's not much going on then in other sports. More importantly, the TV networks know this and they are Goodell's overlord.



* Once someone reaches 8 years under an 18 game schedule, that will, more or less, be the equivalent of having played a full season under the old format.

[BroncoWave]

* Once someone reaches 8 years under an 18 game schedule, that will, more or less, be the equivalent of having played a full season under the old format.

:confused:

[Sconnie Bronco]

:confused:

18-16=2

2*8= 16

The old/current format is 16 games.

[BroncoWave]

18-16=2

2*8= 16

The old/current format is 16 games.

Why does that matter though?

[Lonestar]

What power? We're already in week 3 of the preseason and whatever changes they make to the current CBA are gonna be null and void in 6 months.

What power you ask they can hire and fire at will. They own the franchise and the NFL 32 pretty much equal partners.

Almost all with the same agenda. Making the product better and more infulencial in the world of sports.

Whereas the NFLPA is 600+ members who are for the most part living from check to check. Just on a grander scale than most of us.

They do not get paid a red cent if there is a strike ot lockout.

Whereas the owners still get paid by the TV contracts they negeociated last time Games played or not.



Therein lies the power to get most if not all of what they want in the NEW CBA if they do not break the union altogether.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[KCL]

I believe Lamar Hunt wanted this...or maybe it was more playoff games...:confused:

I can't remember.

[Ravage!!!]

I believe Lamar Hunt wanted this...or maybe it was more playoff games...:confused:

I can't remember.

He was trying to push for more teams to make the playoffs.

[KCL]

He was trying to push for more teams to make the playoffs.

Yep I thought that's what it was.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

I like the schedule we have now. What would be the 2 extra games added? I'd rather see them mandatory schedule some division games at the end of the season to prevent teams from sitting their starters.

They've already done that. This season ends with division games for all teams IIRC. I'm pretty sure they passed it the same time as the uber gay playoff overtime rule where if you score 1st and it's just a field goal, the other team gets the ball. Whiny-assed Viqueens...:tsk:

[BroncoWave]

They've already done that. This season ends with division games for all teams IIRC. I'm pretty sure they passed it the same time as the uber gay playoff overtime rule where if you score 1st and it's just a field goal, the other team gets the ball. Whiny-assed Viqueens...:tsk:

The Vikings were one of the teams who voted against the new OT format. :coffee:

But what exactly is gay about making a team have to play offense AND defense to win it or at least good enough offense to score a TD instead of being able to just march half the field and get a FG?

[HORSEPOWER 56]

The Vikings were one of the teams who voted against the new OT format. :coffee:

But what exactly is gay about making a team have to play offense AND defense to win it or at least good enough offense to score a TD instead of being able to just march half the field and get a FG?

Because football is a team sport. If one part of your team (defense) can't stop an opposing team from getting into FG range, you deserve to lose. So, what happens when the receiving team returns the overtime opening kickoff for a TD? That's right, game over... and poor wittle Manning, Brees, Favre, or whoever didn't get to touch the ball nor did their starting defense even get a chance. It will only take one of those happening before someone will cry about changing the rules again.

Most of all, if you're that worried about it... win the game in regulation!

[Ravage!!!]

Because football is a team sport. If one part of your team (defense) can't stop an opposing team from getting into FG range, you deserve to lose. So, what happens when the receiving team returns the overtime opening kickoff for a TD? That's right, game over... and poor wittle Manning, Brees, Favre, or whoever didn't get to touch the ball nor did their starting defense even get a chance. It will only take one of those happening before someone will cry about changing the rules again.

Most of all, if you're that worried about it... win the game in regulation!

I think both teams were trying to win the game in regulation, so I don't see how "worrying" about it makes much sense.

Nonetheless, considering this is only a playoff solution, and not a regular season solution, I like it. I absolutely HATE the lame over-time in the NFL. You get a good kickoff return (lets say to the 30 yrd line), and your offense has to move the ball 30 measly yard to win an OT in the playoffs? Really? That sucks. Fans have been complaining about this lack-luster OT system for a VERY long time. Its always sucked, and now its only going to effect the playoffs.

How many games have gone OT in the playoffs where this is something to worry about? Very few. How many KO returns go for TDs in the playoffs? How many of those KO returns have happened in OT, in the playoffs? So I think your scenario is so rare, that it won't ever be considered to be much of something to worry about.

However.... the team that win the opening toss, right now, has a significant advantage. If the game truly is about offense, defense, and special teams.... then I believe both teams should have the "opportunity" (not a guaranteed right) to rely on the three phases to win or lose.....especially in the playoffs. Basically winning because you were the one that got to call "heads" in the center of the field is the worst playoff system in sports...imo

[BroncoWave]

Because football is a team sport. If one part of your team (defense) can't stop an opposing team from getting into FG range, you deserve to lose. So, what happens when the receiving team returns the overtime opening kickoff for a TD? That's right, game over... and poor wittle Manning, Brees, Favre, or whoever didn't get to touch the ball nor did their starting defense even get a chance. It will only take one of those happening before someone will cry about changing the rules again.

Most of all, if you're that worried about it... win the game in regulation!

Thanks for proving my point. It's a TEAM sport, so you should be able to excel in all 3 facets of the game to win.

[Lonestar]

If they are going to be PC then they should allow the other TEAM the sam opportunity to score the same way. Regardless if the other TEAM scores a TD or not.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Nomad]

If they are going to be PC then they should allow the other TEAM the sam opportunity to score the same way. Regardless if the other TEAM scores a TD or not.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

NFL shouldn't have to be PC and give everybody a fair shot. These guys are pros and should be held accountable to whether stop the offense or offense scores TDs not FGs! 60 minutes is plenty of time and if that's not enough, then sudden death is the answer!!

[Lonestar]

I totally agree I was using PC as a response that it was not fair that. A TEAM could score on a kick off and that woulld be it.

I think however they score in sudden death and the other TEAM does not get a second chance to match.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Ravage!!!]

How many professional sports have a "sudden death" OT?

[BroncoWave]

How many professional sports have a "sudden death" OT?

None that I can think of. Football is the only sport in which you don't have to play offense AND defense to win a game in OT. Pretty ridiculous if you ask me.

[Ravage!!!]

None that I can think of. Football is the only sport in which you don't have to play offense AND defense to win a game in OT. Pretty ridiculous if you ask me.

I guess maybe old-school boxing where they didn't keep score, and only a knockout would end the fight. :confused:

I've never been a fan of the NFL OT rules. Hell, it may be 10 years before we see the new rules used since they are only good for the playoffs.

[Ravage!!!]

Other than tennis, boxing, and golf, what isn't a 'team' sport? Bowling, but they don't have OT. Swimming? skeet shooting?

[Overtime]

Goodell pointed out that the league already has the right to impose an 18-game schedule -- and keep four preseason games for each team -- under the current labor agreement with the players. But that contract expires after this season, and it's clear the expanded schedule will be a central issue in talks on a new collective bargaining agreement.

I don't see the point in adding 2 regular season games while keeping all 4 pre-season games. that's just a waste in my opinion. 4 pre-season games are ridiculous.

I say throw out 2 pre-season games, and add them to the regular season.



Around the NFL, however, many players questioned the wisdom of making an already grueling season even longer. At the very least, they want more money -- and several proposed changes in the rules governing injured players or adding an extra bye week to deal with the grind.

"With 16 games, every game is important and therefore the fans are very into it, the stadiums are packed because they know if their team loses, it pushes them further and further away from making the playoffs," Cincinnati Bengals quarterback Carson Palmer said. "I think if you go to 18, each game kind of loses a little bit of its significance."negative numb nuts. it's gonna add drama, and excitement to an already exciting season. more teams will have more chances to make the playoffs even if they hit a rough patch.

take for example, if Denver had had 2 more weeks last year, we might have won those final 2 games and ended up making the playoffs.

they want more money? They make millions already. how much ******* money is enough? :mad:



The players clearly expect to be receive a bigger chunk of the multibillion-dollar NFL pie if they're going to be putting their bodies on the line in two more games that count.

"Obviously the players want to be compensated for two more games," San Francisco 49ers linebacker Matt Wilhelm said. "That's the one thing the players have to get met."

They are also concerned about an increased risk of injuries and fret that it could shorten their careers or increase the number of health problems they endure after retirement.if they're that concerned about injuries, then they should retire and go get a real job making $40,000 a year with 2 weeks paid vacation, and a health insurance package that will cost them $4000 a year, reducing their salary to $36,000.



But Kraft said the expanded season is the most obvious step to bring in more money while the economy is struggling.

"The other thing," he added, "our fans have said pretty loud and clear they'd like us to have fewer preseason games."

Several players and coaches have pointed out that having only two preseason games would likely make it more difficult for fringe players to get enough of a look to make the team.amen! to hell with 4 pre-season games. as for making it more difficult for fringe players, that means the competition increases, and that players will try harder and push themselves more! which is good.



But some figure it's a foregone conclusion that the owners will get their way.

"Personally, I don't see how it helps the game, or the quality of the game," said Barry Cofield, a defensive tackle for the New York Giants. "But if they demand it, they will probably get it."hopefully they do too.

Barry Cofield, you are an idiot. what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Bosco]

they want more money? They make millions already. how much ******* money is enough? :mad:

As much as they can possibly get, which if the season is expanded to 18 games, will likely result is a pay raise reflective of the increased work load.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

How many professional sports have a "sudden death" OT?

Hockey. At the end of overtime, they now have a shootout. It's because so many teams would just play defense in OT to try to get the tie and the resulting point.

My position on this is simply that if you can't trust your defense/STs to help get your offense the ball back, then maybe you don't deserve to win. Funny how all this clamor for getting the ball if the other team scores didn't upset anyone when the Cardinals defense scored the winning points in the playoff game last year. Should they then have given GB another chance because they didn't drive down the field and score on their possession? Where does it end? You can say apples to oranges all you want, but the point is still there.

I think the college system is even more flawed because the STs really have no factor in the outcome. About 1/2 the kickers in college ball can hit a FG from the starting position. There's no kickoff, no return, just spot the ball in scoring range and play. That's crap as far as I'm concerned.

The bottom line is, how many games have the Broncos won on their first drive of OT with a FG? We had one just last year. Should we have given Tom Brady a chance to win because we only kicked a FG? Screw that! Someone should look up the stats on teams winning OT games if they win the coin flip... I'd be willing to bet they are a lot closer to 50/50 than most realize.

[Overtime]

The bottom line is, how many games have the Broncos won on their first drive of OT with a FG? We had one just last year. Should we have given Tom Brady a chance to win because we only kicked a FG? Screw that! Someone should look up the stats on teams winning OT games if they win the coin flip... I'd be willing to bet they are a lot closer to 50/50 than most realize.

i think it was something like 72% of the teams that won the coin flip won in OT.

i'll see if i can find the link. i know it was discussed previously.

[Lonestar]

IIRC it was closer to just under 60% like 58 or so
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Overtime]

i was way off.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percent_of_teams_that_win_the_coin_toss_win_i n_overtime_in_the_NFL

he NFL has had 325 overtime games since the rule was adopted in 1974. The results:

Both teams have had possession 235 times (72.3%).
The team that has won the toss has won 169 times (52.0%).
The team that has lost the toss has won 141 times (43.4%).
223 games were decided by a field goal (68.6%).
86 games were decided by a TD (26.5%).
One game was decided by a safety (0.3%).
There have been 15 ties (4.6%).

[Lonestar]

So in other words 52 to 43% not as big a deal as one would think it is. But the real number that counts is winning it on the first possesion and that was the 58% or so I mentioned.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Overtime]

So in other words 52 to 43% not as big a deal as one would think it is. But the real number that counts is winning it on the first possesion and that was the 58% or so I mentioned.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums


the majority of the teams that win the coin toss win in OT. i think it's a perfect system, because it's totally unbiased. each team has a 50/50 chance of winning the coin toss. but really each team has a fair chance at winning in OT.

if you're on the defensive side, if your defense goes out and does it's job and makes the other team punt, and then your Offense goes and scores you win.

if your defense doeesn't do it's job, then you lose. its that simple.

[Lonestar]

As I was saying the PC crowd got their pantis in a wad about losing without getting on the field.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Ravage!!!]

As I was saying the PC crowd got their pantis in a wad about losing without getting on the field.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Explain how that has ANYTHING to do with being PC?

[Ravage!!!]

Hockey. At the end of overtime, they now have a shootout. It's because so many teams would just play defense in OT to try to get the tie and the resulting point.

My position on this is simply that if you can't trust your defense/STs to help get your offense the ball back, then maybe you don't deserve to win. Funny how all this clamor for getting the ball if the other team scores didn't upset anyone when the Cardinals defense scored the winning points in the playoff game last year. Should they then have given GB another chance because they didn't drive down the field and score on their possession? Where does it end? You can say apples to oranges all you want, but the point is still there.

I think the college system is even more flawed because the STs really have no factor in the outcome. About 1/2 the kickers in college ball can hit a FG from the starting position. There's no kickoff, no return, just spot the ball in scoring range and play. That's crap as far as I'm concerned.

The bottom line is, how many games have the Broncos won on their first drive of OT with a FG? We had one just last year. Should we have given Tom Brady a chance to win because we only kicked a FG? Screw that! Someone should look up the stats on teams winning OT games if they win the coin flip... I'd be willing to bet they are a lot closer to 50/50 than most realize.

Hockey is a perfect example as to how the new NFL system works for the playoffs.

In Hockey, you have a shootout. If team A gets the puck first and scores (during the shootout), team B then gets the puck to try and tie. If they don't, then team A gets the win. If they DO tie it up, its rinse and repeat.

People/fans have been complaining about the NFL OT system for YEARS, bro. If you are saying people only started complaining this last season, you are WAY way off. Its really not as complicated as you are making it out to be. Once both teams have had the offense on the field, its then "sudden death." Thats really has NOTHING to do with this "should we then let Brady have a chance" like you are making it out to be, nor is it that hard to see as to why a LOT of fans find that to be superior.

Even Hockey and Soccer have a more fair system with their shootouts.

[Nomad]

the majority of the teams that win the coin toss win in OT. i think it's a perfect system, because it's totally unbiased. each team has a 50/50 chance of winning the coin toss. but really each team has a fair chance at winning in OT.

if you're on the defensive side, if your defense goes out and does it's job and makes the other team punt, and then your Offense goes and scores you win.

if your defense doeesn't do it's job, then you lose. its that simple.

This is the way I look at it! The team who won the toss's offense has to do their job of scoring a TD and the opposing team's defense has to stop. Plain and simple.....it's accountability on the part of these guys doing their jobs. And the 'fair' thing is a joke when it comes to professional games and comparing football to hockey and soccer is laughable, I can understand high school or college.

But I believe FGs should be taken out of OT for the first series of each team and the first one to score a TD wins!! After the first series if no one has scored a TD then allow FGs because eventually you may have too many ties!!

[BroncoWave]

This is the way I look at it! The team who won the toss's offense has to do their job of scoring a TD and the opposing team's defense has to stop. Plain and simple.....it's accountability on the part of these guys doing their jobs. And the 'fair' thing is a joke when it comes to professional games and comparing football to hockey and soccer is laughable, I can understand high school or college.

But I believe FGs should be taken out of OT for the first series of each team and the first one to score a TD wins!! After the first series if no one has scored a TD then allow FGs because eventually you may have too many ties!!

In baseball, both teams get an AB in extra innings. In basketball, both teams must play offense and defense in OT. In hockey, both teams must play offense and defense in OT (unless someone scores off the faceoff, which I can never remember happening) and if it goes into a shootout both teams get shots. In soccer, both teams play offense and defense, and both get to shoot in penalty kicks. In tennis, both players have to serve and return in a tiebreak.

Why should the NFL be different than EVERY SINGLE OTHER pro and college sport? When you are doing something one way and EVERYONE ELSE is doing it another way, you are almost always wrong.

As for accountability, when a team wins the toss why should only their offense be held accountable and not the defense? Why give the defense a free pass just because their offense scored on the first drive? Hardly seems fair or logical.

[Nomad]

This is what makes the NFL unique and I like the way it is and obviously they do to! So people can except it or keep whining!

[Ravage!!!]

This is what makes the NFL unique and I like the way it is and obviously they do to! So people can except it or keep whining!

You mean they like it, so thats why they changed it? :confused: :D

[BroncoWave]

This is what makes the NFL unique and I like the way it is and obviously they do to! So people can except it or keep whining!

Just because it's unique doesn't mean it's good. And the fact that they just changed it for the playoffs means it will be changed for the regular season soon enough, so obviously the NFL is beginning to realize just how dumb the current format is.