Mark Murphy suggests 17 game season

[ricky]

It's unofficially official: the NFL wants an 18 game season. With new labor talks already underway to try to avoid a work stoppage in 2021, Goodell has made it clear he wants an 18 game schedule. Goodell has said that since the league has tried to make the game "safer for players", more games would not be a problem. Now Murphy pops up as the "voice of reason" for one extra game a season. If this is the NFL stance- more games (probably sacrificing at least one exhibition/"preseason" game). But there are other issues. Players who have contracts would be working more for the same amount of money. But, the owners would get more money. Which could be a point of contention.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/07/12/mark-murphy-supports-17-games-a-regular-season-compromise/

But the NFLPA (the players union) has adamantly against this move. And if they agreed, it would take a pretty serious concession from the league. More guaranteed money? New policy on the use of marijuana by players? Better health/pension benefits for those who don't have a long career? This could get pretty contentious.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/nfl-18-game-season-obstacles

 

[craig]

.... Players who have contracts would be working more for the same amount of money. But, the owners would get more money. ..... the NFLPA (the players union) has adamantly against this move. And if they agreed, it would take a pretty serious concession from the league. More guaranteed money? New policy on the use of marijuana by players? Better health/pension benefits for those who don't have a long career? ....

Even if they didn't oppose it at all, what negotiation sense would it be to say so?  What a league wants, a players union automatically opposes; doing so creates leverage for CBA concessions. 

I wonder how "adamant" they really are?  Salary cap is determined by league revenue, as CBA-agreed.  So if the owners are correct that they'll generate more revenue, that will quickly enough generate more player income. 

[ricky]

Even if they didn't oppose it at all, what negotiation sense would it be to say so?  What a league wants, a players union automatically opposes; doing so creates leverage for CBA concessions. 

I wonder how "adamant" they really are?  Salary cap is determined by league revenue, as CBA-agreed.  So if the owners are correct that they'll generate more revenue, that will quickly enough generate more player income.

What about players who are already under contract? Will the contracts have to be redone to reflect the greater workload? Because the players would understandably balk at playing another game or two for the same money they were getting for less games.

[craig]

Yeah, that's true, and those are the guys who'd have the most issue with it.  Point taken. 

Still, I wonder if that isn't as substantial a barrier as it seems?  A change would take considerable time to negotiate, and be a couple years away.  Perhaps whenever an agreement was eventually reached after a long and painful leveraging, it probably wouldn't be implemented for a couple of year even after the agreement was reached, so there likely wouldn't be that many long-term deals impacted for multiple years. 

If there was more smoke that this might be coming to be, new contracts might perhaps anticipate that to some degree.  Player options?  Automatic contracted 1/17 or 2/18 raises in case the season is elongated?  Cap-change contingencies?  For example, Rodgers' agent had apparently discussed including a contingency such that his salary would be at 20% of the salary cap, or whatever, and would grow with the cap.  (I don't think they ended up including that, but that might become a standard inclusion if agents wanted to protect against schedule-induced jump in league revenue....) 

[craig]

By the way, I'm not lobbying to extend the season.  It's the National Injury League already, and they already have inadequate practice time for development and young-player improvement.

I'm just factoring that in a world where money is shared between players and owners, any potential increases in revenue provide financial appeal to both groups.  (I also realize that finances aren't the only consideration; but it is one of them.)   

[dannobanano]

So much to consider beyond the salaries.

1) Enlarging 53 man roster and 46 man "game day actives"?

2) Enlarging the size of Practice Squads

3) Increasing the salary cap, in proportion, to account for the extra game(s) added to a season

4) Increasing the number/definition of IR players that can be brought back during a regular season

ETC
ETC
ETC


Can't wait for training camp to start.

[craig]

Absolutely, lots of things the union would like to leverage for.  So *IF* the owners want something, for sure the union wants to use that to leverage for other things they want. 

What is the current % of revenue that is used to determine salary cap?  Obviously the union could stick with their current cut, and the same % of a larger pie will mean a boost in salary.  But yeah, they could get a double-boost in salary if, for example, both the pie gets larger, AND their % of the pie also increases.  (If extra games boosts revenue by 10%, plus the players get 48% instead of 44%, for example, it could be a big double-raise for the players...)

[ricky]

The battle lines have been drawn. The league wants 18 games (or maybe 17, at first; it's like letting the camel put it's nose in the tent). DeMaurice Smith has just come out against the expansion. His argument is simple: it'll be bad for the players. Which I absolutely believe it will be. Money means nothing if you're out of the league, and have an injury that will affect you for the rest of your life. IMO.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/07/12/demaurice-smith-18-game-schedule-not-in-players-best-interest/

[RT]

The sad thing here is that the NFL doesn't give a damn about quality of the game if they can make more money. Packers fans got a good taste of what meaningless games felt like at the end of last season, so lets add more games and more injuries on top of that mess for the sake of greed. The NFL does know who the driving forces are for their league and fantasy and gambling is it and for them quality of the game means nothing, it is just about more action. Football purists who long for meaningful and quality football are a small percentage and they can all go to hell as far as the NFL is concerned for the sake of higher profits.       

[craig]

I agree with all of the points being made. 

One tangent on meaningless games.  Maybe football purists can tell football isn't meaningful and quality.  But even within this board, there is a tendency to see possibilities and have hopes well into a season.  Last year it was pretty obvious the Packers weren't really any good.  But even well into the season and right up to MM's getting fired, there were still hopes that *if* we get hot and win a bunch, that we might still pull it out and get into the playoffs, like the "RELAX" year.  And *IF* you get into the playoffs, anything can happen, etc.. 

My point, here, is that the longer the season the more games it takes to get mathematically eliminated!  And so long as a team isn't eliminated, a lot of fans believe in the "get hot late" hypothesis.  So in some deformed way, it may almost be a deal where a longer season might reduce the percentage of "mathematically-eliminated-already" games, and almost make a higher percentage "meaningful", even if only in a somewhat shallow sort of way? 

But yeah, a lot of teams that are .500 or a game under, still very much feel like their November and early December games are fully meaningful, given that 10 wins can usually get you in, and sometimes only 9.   

[marklawrence]

They could have a rule that any particular player only plays 16 games. To make that work you expand the roster from 53 to 57. 60 for 18 games.  Suddenly development qb is a real job. And players get two bye weeks. Three if there's 18 games. I kinda like it.

Of course, I'm a divorced single dad, I'm very aware that no one gives a crap what I like.

[ricky]

They could have a rule that any particular player only plays 16 games. To make that work you expand the roster from 53 to 57. 60 for 18 games.  Suddenly development qb is a real job. And players get two bye weeks. Three if there's 18 games. I kinda like it.

Of course, I'm a divorced single dad, I'm very aware that no one gives a crap what I like.

So, super competitive guys like Rodgers and Brady and others will be forced to sit out games they are healthy enough to play? And which games would those be? Because then you are NOT putting your best players on the field, and at least two games a year would likely be very similar to exhibition games. Nope, this is a horrible idea. IMO. And, by the way Mark, I really do care what you think. Even when I fundamentally disagree with your opinion. Which, of course, I rarely do. 

[dannobanano]

They could have a rule that any particular player only plays 16 games. To make that work you expand the roster from 53 to 57. 60 for 18 games.  Suddenly development qb is a real job. And players get two bye weeks. Three if there's 18 games. I kinda like it.

Of course, I'm a divorced single dad, I'm very aware that no one gives a crap what I like.

So, super competitive guys like Rodgers and Brady and others will be forced to sit out games they are healthy enough to play? And which games would those be? Because then you are NOT putting your best players on the field, and at least two games a year would likely be very similar to exhibition games. Nope, this is a horrible idea. IMO. And, by the way Mark, I really do care what you think. Even when I fundamentally disagree with your opinion. Which, of course, I rarely do. 

Take it up with the owners, ricky.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-owners-reportedly-have-proposed-18-game-schedule-with-16-game-limit-for-all-players-as-cba-talks-intensify/

[ricky]

Take it up with the owners, ricky.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-owners-reportedly-have-proposed-18-game-schedule-with-16-game-limit-for-all-players-as-cba-talks-intensify/

I'll just echo what RT wrote earlier: that the owners don't care about the quality of the product, but the quantity of money they can get from the fans. Though this also means there might need to be collusion between teams, where they agree among each other as to when to rest their starters, so there would be no competitive advantage. Or perhaps the league would mandate which games each team would have to rest their starters. So, instead of exhibition games before the season, we'd get exhibition games during the season. Would advertisers get a discount when those games are played in case the ratings tank? And if this happened during a time when one of the teams was trying to make the playoffs... Oh well, as Mark might lament, no one cares what we think anyway.

[scoremore]

Bad idea.  16 games is more than enough.  If they are just using it to help in negotiations fine.  It's a rough sport they are already pushing it at 16.