Players presented first detailed proposal for 18-game season

[Denver Native (Carol)]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81aef091/article/players-presented-first-detailed-proposal-for-18game-season?module=HP_headlines

WASHINGTON -- The current labor deal between the NFL and its players' union contains a provision that allows the league to increase the regular season to 18 games. As the sides try to negotiate a new contract, they are talking again about the possibility of making such a switch.

"An 18-game regular season is not uncharted territory," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press on Wednesday, referring to the 2006 collective bargaining agreement and noting that the CFL and USFL have played schedules of that length.

"The key," Aiello continued, "is to approach it the right way and work closely with our players and clubs to come up with a year-round football calendar that will be better for everyone, including the fans."

League owners and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell want to expand the regular season from 16 games to 18 and cut the preseason from four games to two. The NFL presented the NFL Players Association with its first detailed proposal covering that issue at a bargaining session Tuesday in Washington.

Goodell has pointed out that the old CBA already left room for the league to extend the regular season, but he also says he wants to work on any such switch with the union.

The 2006 contract says the NFL would need to give the NFLPA 90 days notice in writing before increasing from 16 games to as many as 18. That agreement also says the league would have to negotiate "with the NFLPA with regard to additional compensation to be paid to players for additional regular season games."

The union hasn't said it will go along with an 18-game regular season, but Indianapolis Colts president Bill Polian said Monday he believes it's a "fait accompli." Polian sought to clarify his comments Wednesday, saying in an interview with ESPN Radio: "I was very imprecise. I said that the 18-game season was a fait accompli and ... it isn't. It is subject to lengthy discussion in detail with the players' association."

In a joint statement about their latest bargaining session, the league and union said Tuesday's negotiations "focused on several matters," including a longer regular season, a rookie wage scale and improvements for retired players.

"Both sides look forward to continuing these discussions and reaching a new collective bargaining agreement," the statement said.

The current collective bargaining agreement expires in March, and NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith has said he believes owners are preparing for a lockout. Indeed, the home page of the NFLPA's official website features a "Lockout Watch" that counts down the days, hours, minutes and seconds until the CBA expires.

The players currently receive 59.6 percent of designated NFL revenues, a number agreed to in the 2006 CBA. The owners say that's too much, arguing that they have huge debts from building stadiums and starting up NFL Network and other ventures, making it impossible to be profitable.

The NFL generates nearly $8 billion in revenues annually, with about $1 billion going to operating expenses. The owners receive about 40 percent of the rest, but they want about $1.3 billion more before the players are given their cut, and they'd like two more regular-season games to get more money out of the networks for everyone.

Players have said they won't agree to a new deal that amounts to a pay cut. Smith has been warning players since he took office in early 2009 to put aside money in case of a work stoppage.

The union has started the process of having players vote to decertify the union, a step that eventually would allow players to sue the NFL if the owners decide to impose a lockout.

The NFLPA was decertified in 1989, two years after a failed players' strike. It returned as a union in 1993, when a contract was reached with the league that provided for free agency. That landmark CBA was renewed or restructured several times since 1993, including in 2006. The owners opted out of that deal two years ago.

[DenBronx]

I love it, the more football the better. This takes nothing away from the evaluation process because teams will have more live scrimmages with other teams instead of preseason to see how the rookies will fare.

I called this years ago!

[BroncoWave]

I love it, the more football the better. This takes nothing away from the evaluation process because teams will have more live scrimmages with other teams instead of preseason to see how the rookies will fare.

I called this years ago!

We'll see how much you are loving it when there are more injuries and more teams are missing their star players at the end of the season and the playoffs.

This is just a terrible idea on every level IMO. Along with the injuries, it does hurt the chances of undrafted guys making teams and it makes every game a little less important. It also will mess up the schedule structure which I think is pretty much perfect as it is.

[DenBronx]

We'll see how much you are loving it when there are more injuries and more teams are missing their star players at the end of the season and the playoffs.

This is just a terrible idea on every level IMO. Along with the injuries, it does hurt the chances of undrafted guys making teams and it makes every game a little less important. It also will mess up the schedule structure which I think is pretty much perfect as it is.


That is why the 53 man roster limit will be significantly raised. Not to mention practice squad, how many PUP/IR people a team can have at once. AND two bye weeks instead of one.

IMO, it screws a franchise more by having one "star player", DUME, go down and not having options. Freak injuries like Dume would then allow another guy to step up not to mention Dume being able to come back later in the year.

Fans want more football. Makes sense on every level for owners, players, the nfl, tv stations, economy and the fans.

[UnderArmour]

Also, injured reserve needs to be adjusted to allow players to come off later in the season. Makes loads more sense than the current system where players can be out September, October, and November but then miss December and the playoffs because of the rule.

[DenBronx]

Also, injured reserve needs to be adjusted to allow players to come off later in the season. Makes loads more sense than the current system where players can be out September, October, and November but then miss December and the playoffs because of the rule.

Yeah like put a time limit on it or something. Don't just write the player off completely. There have been countless times where guys are healed come playoff time and could really help the team. I think by adding to the roster there will be alot of second chance players make it in the NFL or players that wouldn't normally play see some time and to me it's better to see them in regular season then against 3rd teamers in preseason anyway.

[Bosco]

I don't like it.

[BroncoJoe]

The Broncos played 20 games in the 1997-98 season.

[Nomad]

The more their wage and benefits go up, the more production I want to see and if that means more games:ohwell:. It's their job!!!! As for as the injury thing, it's part of the job and these guys know what they are getting into!!

[Dirk]

The more their wage and benefits go up, the more production I want to see and if that means more games:ohwell:. It's their job!!!! As for as the injury thing, it's part of the job and these guys know what they are getting into!!

It's no different for the owners, Denver gave Doom the big contract and get ZERO production out of him this year.


Hell, with the contracts becoming so high such as the $100,000,000 contract for Haynesworth...I would want 2 more games out of them also to offset the costs of the contracts today.

[Tned]

Other than the impact on records, I like the idea. Yes, there is a theoretical increase in the chance of injuries. Just like there is with the longer NFL season compared to NCAA. Yet, there are lots of injuries in the NCAA. An injury can happen in the first game or twentieth.

For me, I watch football for 5-6 months (preseason and postseason) and I spend six months waiting for the season to restart. I would really like to get two more Broncos games a year to watch.

[TheDave]

As much as I like the idea of having more Football to watch, I think this is a bad idea for the game.

Injuries already determine wins and losses more than I'm comfortable with. I think an extended season is just going to exacerbate this problem...

... That, and i think the owners are using this as a bargaining chip for the upcomming lockout.

[BigDaddyBronco]

I don't hate the idea of going to an 18 game season, but there are a lot of questions.

1. Injuries, there will be more injuries. Some teams will be at a huge disadvantage (more injuries than other teams) unless they expand the team to 56 or 57 players.

2. Schedule. Right now they play teams in their division twice, another division in the AFC and one in the NFC, and the other two teams in the AFC based on divisional ranking the year before. How do you equitably add 2 more games? If it were three you could add the NFC teams based on divisional ranking. I can see this helping or hurting some teams more than others based off the luck of the draw. Plus add in another bye, overseas games, etc. what a schedule mess.

3. Removing the 2 pre-season games would make the beginning 2 to 3 game seven more sloppy than they already are. Maybe this would add to some excitement, or maybe the fans would just be annoyed that none of the players are on the same page.

[missingnumber7]

They need to look at getting the UFL on board as a developmental league, or a place for players to be stashed for future use...see the NBA D league. If they use that league as a place for these practice squad players or kids that need a little more time then that would be perfect. Just have teams own or co-own teams and allow them to play a role in it and keep the rights to players when they go play at that level.

The Rosters need to be revamped...not just the 53 man roster, but the IR needs a different look, and the way they do the PUP list would be perfect...have a 6 week pup, and a 12 week pup, and then full blown IR. Or something similar to that. The other thing that needs to be done is to have a bigger Practice Squad.

I could care less about the number of games...thats part of the reason the nfl is so great...at the end of the season i need a little break...until i realize that football isn't on on sunday and there isn't anything worth watching...then I want football back. The demand is high...but in the end I think the thing that is coming is shorter player careers. If they play 18 games I don't think you will see the 20 year players anymore, which is insane anyway. They get their retirement benefits after 10 anyway. Maybe then we can clean out some of the old garbage that hangs around the league sooner instead of seeing Jeff George trying out for every team at age 45.

[BroncoWave]

I don't hate the idea of going to an 18 game season, but there are a lot of questions.

1. Injuries, there will be more injuries. Some teams will be at a huge disadvantage (more injuries than other teams) unless they expand the team to 56 or 57 players.

2. Schedule. Right now they play teams in their division twice, another division in the AFC and one in the NFC, and the other two teams in the AFC based on divisional ranking the year before. How do you equitably add 2 more games? If it were three you could add the NFC teams based on divisional ranking. I can see this helping or hurting some teams more than others based off the luck of the draw. Plus add in another bye, overseas games, etc. what a schedule mess.

3. Removing the 2 pre-season games would make the beginning 2 to 3 game seven more sloppy than they already are. Maybe this would add to some excitement, or maybe the fans would just be annoyed that none of the players are on the same page.

#2 is my other biggest concern. The schedule is set up perfectly the way it is. I really don't see a good way to equitably add two games. The only thing I can think of is to take out the 2 games against teams with the division standing as you and just have a team play 2 full divisions in their conference. That way, the schedule would be completely equitable between teams in the same division at least. In fact, that may actually make for more competitive division races since the teams in the same division would have he exact same common opponents.

[TXBRONC]

I wouldn't be against them going to an 18 game schedule. Certainly there are draw backs especially for the players but from a fan's point of view that means two more games I can watch the Broncos play.

[Buff]

It's not my body getting annihilated... Bring on the extra games.

[Nomad]

It's not my body getting annihilated... Bring on the extra games.

Yeah, it's part of the job!! It's not like the NFL wants to add 10 extra games! Only downfall is I may get burned out from football then again not much to do in North Dakota (soon to be Alaska) in the dead of winter!!

[MadMax]

I don't like it from a longevity issue, I just don't think players will hold up as long. At this point in time we can already see how the greats of years past can't walk, or have severe brain injuries. An increase in the number of games is only going to make that worse. The NFL has given a lot of lip service to their concern about concussions the last few years, so I think this increase of games is really two-faced of them. The end result will be either more brain injuries, or it will force the league to put even more restrictive rules on when players can play or how they can hit in order to prevent more head injuries. Both options are bad for the sport.

Also, BDawk hit it right on the head when he said this will actually be more like a four game increase. Right now, starters play very little in pre-season but with the reduction in pre-season games coaches will most likely play their starters as much as possible in those two games to get them ready to play so fast.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The NFL is the most popular sport in America and is earning record revenues, this whole thing smacks of greed.

[missingnumber7]

I don't like it from a longevity issue, I just don't think players will hold up as long. At this point in time we can already see how the greats of years past can't walk, or have severe brain injuries. An increase in the number of games is only going to make that worse. The NFL has given a lot of lip service to their concern about concussions the last few years, so I think this increase of games is really two-faced of them. The end result will be either more brain injuries, or it will force the league to put even more restrictive rules on when players can play or how they can hit in order to prevent more head injuries. Both options are bad for the sport.

Also, BDawk hit it right on the head when he said this will actually be more like a four game increase. Right now, starters play very little in pre-season but with the reduction in pre-season games coaches will most likely play their starters as much as possible in those two games to get them ready to play so fast.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The NFL is the most popular sport in America and is earning record revenues, this whole thing smacks of greed.


Maybe if they played 18 we wouldn't have to hear all that crap about Favre. I've been hearing this boo hoo from players that are all broken up and hurt after playing for 10 to 12 years and you know what...they are getting compensated for it. I really don't feel bad for them. I was deployed for 2 years and I feel all broken and crap and don't get compensated the way they do. I know its like comparing apples and bananas, but tell me why I should be against 18 games for the sole reason that Ray Lewis is broken and if he plays a 16 game season he may be able to play for 5 to 6 years longer making multiple millions of dollars. I really don't feel bad at all.