Enhancing Player Safety. Adding More Games. A Radical Solution.

[blah3]

I think this is a little too complicated.
Secondly, it really does not address the elephant in the room, that football is a dangerous sport. That is simply it's nature. An extra week off may help 25% of the physical issues. Let's be honest many of the 'injuries/pain' the players play through are NOT going to get fixed with another 1 week off. They likely need a month or so. So then what, 4 weeks on 4 weeks off? Simple not a viable option to keep folks interested.
I think the bottom line is that people will simply need to accept that the sport is dangerous. And let's be brutally honest, the players get compensated for the danger they put themselves in by earning large sums of money. That's how it works in real life. You have hazardous job, you get hazard pay. NFL atheletes are in essence earning hazard pay.
Now, I'm not opposed to minor fixes, like better helmets, expanded rosters, etc. What I rail against is the idea that the game can be made safe. Everyone knows it can't be made safe. People will get hurt. The players know it and they knew it in the past.
So what would I do? Better helmets, expanded rosters, AND 1 rule change. Eliminate the 5 yard chuck rule. All the defense to contact WR's 10 or 15 yards down field. That is going to put a big dent in the focus on the big hit to jar the ball loose. You'll have way less high speed contact occurring.
As another poster said, if they want to beef up after playing medical coverage, have the union finance it. That will show how committed players actually are to player safety.

[jonboy79]

Setting aside the issue of safety, I'm not claiming that it's unreasonable to ask players to play 18 games versus 16. If there is no safety issue then I have problem asking them to play more games.

But the simple fact is that switching a couple preseason games to regular season game will in fact cause starters to play more games.

it's 20 vs 20 and it's really that simple.
They can have starters play a slightly less percentage of snaps if desired to achieve the same effect, though likely MORE beneficial to player safety. Bigger rosters could allow that.

Where we don't agree is this status quo where the stars don't play much in the preseason. You consider that an entitlement that needs to be carried forward, I do not, in any way, shape or form.

The post Blah3 made is perfect in my book. The sport will never be safe, and that's why they get paid so handsomely.

You could also say that I see this from an owners perspective, and you from a players perspective, and I think that is correct.

[wastnawayagn]

Common sense dictate's that he reason coaches don't play the stars in the preseason games is because THEY DON'T WANT THEM TO GET HURT!

It certainly has nothing to do with a "we're vets so we don't have to play" unspoken rule between players and coaches. Should there be any type of advantage to playing the players in the preseason, they'd be playing.

Therefore, although it's correct in saying they're contractually obligated to play 20 games, suck it up and play them, it has become the norm for the majority of players to play 16 (in an effort to keep star players healthy) and in doing so, the "safety factor" is calculated over a 16 game season. Change that to 18 game season and the risk obviously goes up.

Regarding the OP, I kind of like it. While slightly complicated, the right minds could make it work. I personally even find myself watching arena football, just cause its football. Having multiple games every week and being more involved with up and coming talent (farm teams) would be interesting to me.

But it seems like the owners would lose money. Losing A Team home games would be too substantial, I think, that the B Team home games wouldn't equalize.

[jonboy79]

Common sense dictate's that he reason coaches don't play the stars in the preseason games is because THEY DON'T WANT THEM TO GET HURT!

It certainly has nothing to do with a "we're vets so we don't have to play" unspoken rule between players and coaches. Should there be any type of advantage to playing the players in the preseason, they'd be playing.

Therefore, although it's correct in saying they're contractually obligated to play 20 games, suck it up and play them, it has become the norm for the majority of players to play 16 (in an effort to keep star players healthy) and in doing so, the "safety factor" is calculated over a 16 game season. Change that to 18 game season and the risk obviously goes up.

Regarding the OP, I kind of like it. While slightly complicated, the right minds could make it work. I personally even find myself watching arena football, just cause its football. Having multiple games every week and being more involved with up and coming talent (farm teams) would be interesting to me.

But it seems like the owners would lose money. Losing A Team home games would be too substantial, I think, that the B Team home games wouldn't equalize.

I think the stars only play 1-2 games(worth of game time) of the preseason because it doesn't count. It is not worth it to risk the health of a star player in a game that does not count.

[Shas]

Common sense dictate's that he reason coaches don't play the stars in the preseason games is because THEY DON'T WANT THEM TO GET HURT!

It certainly has nothing to do with a "we're vets so we don't have to play" unspoken rule between players and coaches. Should there be any type of advantage to playing the players in the preseason, they'd be playing.

Therefore, although it's correct in saying they're contractually obligated to play 20 games, suck it up and play them, it has become the norm for the majority of players to play 16 (in an effort to keep star players healthy) and in doing so, the "safety factor" is calculated over a 16 game season. Change that to 18 game season and the risk obviously goes up.

Regarding the OP, I kind of like it. While slightly complicated, the right minds could make it work. I personally even find myself watching arena football, just cause its football. Having multiple games every week and being more involved with up and coming talent (farm teams) would be interesting to me.

But it seems like the owners would lose money. Losing A Team home games would be too substantial, I think, that the B Team home games wouldn't equalize.

Ah, a response I can agree with, thanks.

I was starting to think I was totally incapable of expressing how it really will put starting players more at risk by going to 18 games.

I too like the idea of watching developmental players play. We can all talk about liking Matt Furtensburg but I would have enjoyed seeing him compete. The Ravens brought in 17 UDFA's and I would have liked to see them stick around and develop. As it stands, nearly none of them will.

But you're right, the major flaw is that no one wants to give up home games -- although it's only one home game if you go from 16 to 14 regular season games. My hope was the 6 B League games make up for the loss of the 1 A League game. Not just in ticket sales but extra TV, sponsorship opportunities, merchandising. They may in fact generate more revenue not less, but only if the gamble pays off and they can sell fans on wanting to root for two teams in their market.

[ActualSpamBot]

and you did it again...

SAME number of games.
It's a privilege not to play in the pre-season, not a right. They are currently contractually obligated to do so.

Actually preseason games are not part of a player's contract. They get paid a much more modest stipend for those games.

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH Fierce using Tapatalk

[jonboy79]

Actually preseason games are not part of a player's contract. They get paid a much more modest stipend for those games.

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH Fierce using Tapatalk

I understand they are not directly compensated as such.

But when a player simply chooses to skip the preseason, I will believe what you say. They are mandatory, not optional. Again, the fact that SD let LT go preseason's without carries was a favor, not a right.

IF they switch to an 18/2 season, they will get 1/18th their salary each week for 18 weeks instead of 1/16th for 16 weeks. Still better for most players with poor money management skills, and even if your MM skills are good, you will get paid earlier that way.

[ActualSpamBot]

If your boss suddenly decided to make you work 7 days a week but for only a total of forty hours a week would you call it a good deal?

You're not technically adding any work hours to your schedule so he's not gonna give you a raise, understand.

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH Fierce using Tapatalk

[jonboy79]

If your boss suddenly decided to make you work 7 days a week but for only a total of forty hours a week would you call it a good deal?

You're not technically adding any work hours to your schedule so he's not gonna give you a raise, understand.

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH Fierce using Tapatalk

That's not a fair example, AT ALL!!!!

IF your boss currently made you SHOW UP 7 days a week, but simply sat there and observed 2 days, and worked 5... at 8 hours a day... IF she switched it up so that I worked jsut under 6 hours a day and observed 2 hours a day I wouldn't care and would likely prefer it.

You guys are acting like they don't play AT ALL or even SHOW UP to the preseason.


An even better example, is if your boss let everyone leave one Friday after lunch... paid.

The next week is the entire office going to bitch if they have to work all day on Friday?

OR... if your boss traditionally allowed you to come to work an hour late on Tuesday AM's following a MNF Ravens game. If one time they really needed stuff done on Tuesday AM would the entire office bitch because they had to come to work at normal time?


IN this case, the "DEFAULT SETTING" is that players play 20 games. IT has been slightly adjusted that STARS "generally", don't play MUCH the first 4. If they were asked to do their freaking job and play more of the 3rd and 4th games, it's not asking ANYTHING of them but to do their damn job as it was originally laid out.

[ActualSpamBot]

Except players are contractually obligated to play 16 games at full compensation and 4 games at a much smaller amount. Now they'll be expected to play 18 games at the 16 game compensation and 2 games at the reduced amount.

If you want an 18 game regular season you have to address that. The NFL has already conceded that preseason games don't deserve regular season compensation. That means they acknowledge that preseason games should not require regular season effort.

You want an extra 12% of regular season games per year, you better pay an extra 12% of salaries too.

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH Fierce using Tapatalk

[jonboy79]

Except players are contractually obligated to play 16 games at full compensation and 4 games at a much smaller amount. Now they'll be expected to play 18 games at the 16 game compensation and 2 games at the reduced amount.

If you want an 18 game regular season you have to address that. The NFL has already conceded that preseason games don't deserve regular season compensation. That means they acknowledge that preseason games should not require regular season effort.

You want an extra 12% of regular season games per year, you better pay an extra 12% of salaries too.

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH Fierce using Tapatalk

AND... THEY WILL... If Revenue goes up by 12% as well, which isn't that far from reality, as salaries are tied to revenue.

[ActualSpamBot]

AND... THEY WILL... If Revenue goes up by 12% as well, which isn't that far from reality, as salaries are tied to revenue.

No ifs. Right now there are 3 kinds of NFL games and players are compensated for them accordingly.

Preseason games, for which they are paid 850 dollars for rookies and 1600 dollars for vets.
Regular season games for which they are paid 1/16th of their contractual salary.
Post season games which start at 21,000 dollars per game and go up from there to 46000 for a SuperBowl win.

If you change 2 preseason games to regular season games you don't get to simply turn their compensation into 1/18th of their salary and call it square. The separate levels of compensation indicates that all sides in this arrangement agree that preseason games and regular season games are not the same and you can't simply sub one out for the other.

If games are added to the regular season, simply removing preseason games cannot be viewed as an equal trade off, if it could, then guys would already be making more for those games.

You're simply all the way wrong here bud. The chances that the regular season expansion goes down the way you're claiming it should is so close to zero as to be meaningless.