17-game schedule nearing resolution with NFLPA

**BcRaven** · 02-17-2020, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Davesta
Player safety eh..

Dave, I still don't know why all 53 players aren't active on game days (?) Since they're all being paid, it seems silly to have "inactives." I'm sure there's a $ reason for it, but I just don't know what it is... Bc

**BcRaven** · 02-17-2020, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Continuity Steve

Not a huge fan of a game at a neutral site, but I suppose it is necessary to keep 8 home and 8 away games. I could tolerate it for a second bye week and 2 less preseason games. The more meaningful football, the better in my opinion.

Steve, don't necessarily need a neutral site. Some teams will have 9 home games while others have 8. That will switch on the following year... Bc

**ravensintennessee** · 02-17-2020, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by BcRaven

Dave, I still don't know why all 53 players aren't active on game days (?) Since they're all being paid, it seems silly to have "inactives." I'm sure there's a $ reason for it, but I just don't know what it is... Bc

My understanding is that it's a way to even the playing field from an injury perspective. If Team A has 7 guys injured for a game and their opponent, Team B is fully healthy, the league has determined that would be an arbitrary and unfair advantage since Team A literally has more players at its disposal. At first I thought this was sort of bogus, since you should reward teams for staying healthy but if you reflect on it I think it makes pretty good sense. You don't want guys to have to go on IR on a weekly basis, etc. I'm all for expanded rosters though, I think that's long overdue (and I think it would favor the Ravens given how superior our 2s and 3s tend to be, relative to the league).

**BcRaven** · 02-17-2020, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by ravensintennessee

My understanding is that it's a way to even the playing field from an injury perspective. If Team A has 7 guys injured for a game and their opponent, Team B is fully healthy, the league has determined that would be an arbitrary and unfair advantage since Team A literally has more players at its disposal. At first I thought this was sort of bogus, since you should reward teams for staying healthy but if you reflect on it I think it makes pretty good sense. You don't want guys to have to go on IR on a weekly basis, etc. I'm all for expanded rosters though, I think that's long overdue (and I think it would favor the Ravens given how superior our 2s and 3s tend to be, relative to the league).

Thank you for your explanation, but to me it isn't totally logical. Example = Team A puts a healthy CB on the inactive list. During the first half their two starting CBs collide and are knocked out of the game. Team A cannot call upon that CB even though he's being paid in full. IMO if a team wants to "stash" a player on inactive while he heals, that's OK, but why should the other team be penalized? Also, having as many players at your disposal on game day could help cut down on injuries as others would take some snaps rather than sitting on the bench. You build a 53-man roster only to play 46? ... Bc

**ravensintennessee** · 02-17-2020, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by BcRaven

Thank you for your explanation, but to me it isn't totally logical. Example = Team A puts a healthy CB on the inactive list. During the first half their two starting CBs collide and are knocked out of the game. Team A cannot call upon that CB even though he's being paid in full. IMO if a team wants to "stash" a player on inactive while he heals, that's OK, but why should the other team be penalized? Also, having as many players at your disposal on game day could help cut down on injuries as others would take some snaps rather than sitting on the bench. You build a 53-man roster only to play 46? ... Bc

I hear ya - those are good points that I don't disagree with. Your first point gets at bigger rosters in general I think too. If rosters are 58-60 players strong, even if you're only allowed to have 51-53 active, I think it'd be highly unusual to have a legitimate shortage at any one position due to in game injuries, ejections, etc.

I just know that if we had a bad week of injuries, I wouldn't want to be playing a team who had a handful of extra players that we simply didn't have access to--so for that, I can at least appreciate the inactive concept.

**Mista T** · 02-17-2020, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by BcRaven

Steve, don't necessarily need a neutral site. Some teams will have 9 home games while others have 8. That will switch on the following year... Bc

Perhaps ... but everything that I have read on the subject of scheduling is only that the "17th" game will be played at neutral sites (e.g. London & Mexico City). It would be illogical that the NFL, given its obsession with parity, would allow any team to have the home field advantage for a ninth time while others play only eight.

Moreover, in its quest to grow the product and attain their goal of $25 billion annual revenue, NFL owners are playing the long game of drumming up TV interest and paying-fan support (including NFL jerseys) further beyond our borders. The London, Toronto, & Mexico City games have been testing grounds for this scheme. Add the competition between the wannabe prospective expansion or relocation cities, such as the jilted San Diego & St Louis, or the NFL-ready Alamodome, or the rich Canadian cities with domed stadiums. Baltimore was party to a similar stunt when hosting a "neutral" exhibition game during our 12 years in limbo, trying to lure an NFL team.

**HotInHere** · 02-17-2020, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by ravensintennessee

I hear ya - those are good points that I don't disagree with. Your first point gets at bigger rosters in general I think too. If rosters are 58-60 players strong, even if you're only allowed to have 51-53 active, I think it'd be highly unusual to have a legitimate shortage at any one position due to in game injuries, ejections, etc.

I just know that if we had a bad week of injuries, I wouldn't want to be playing a team who had a handful of extra players that we simply didn't have access to--so for that, I can at least appreciate the inactive concept.

Well the ideal would be something similar to what MLB does with a disabled list. Injured players can be put on a list making them unavailable for that game, and you can replace them on your roster.

But here's the problem: football doesn't have a big pool of minor leaguers to call up. And even if they did, there is a learning curve in football for learning schemes and play terminology etc. So even if you just let people call players off of their proverbial couch, it would be hard for them to get up to speed, be ready to play that week, and then get released on Monday morning.

So in the NFL, your inactive list sort of functions like your team's AAA club. You can move guys up and down to it freely. Personally I think it is time for bigger rosters, and therefore a bigger inactive list. There used to be basically 22 positions on a football field. Now there are probably 30 or more. (Nickel back, dime back, H back, slot WR, etc.) But when you consider all the possible alternative, having an inactive list every week seems like the fairest way to handle it.

**WrongBaldy** · 02-17-2020, 01:51 PM

holy shit 16 playoff teams. what a disaster

**ravensintennessee** · 02-17-2020, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by HotInHere

Well the ideal would be something similar to what MLB does with a disabled list. Injured players can be put on a list making them unavailable for that game, and you can replace them on your roster.

But here's the problem: football doesn't have a big pool of minor leaguers to call up. And even if they did, there is a learning curve in football for learning schemes and play terminology etc. So even if you just let people call players off of their proverbial couch, it would be hard for them to get up to speed, be ready to play that week, and then get released on Monday morning.

So in the NFL, your inactive list sort of functions like your team's AAA club. You can move guys up and down to it freely. Personally I think it is time for bigger rosters, and therefore a bigger inactive list. There used to be basically 22 positions on a football field. Now there are probably 30 or more. (Nickel back, dime back, H back, slot WR, etc.) But when you consider all the possible alternative, having an inactive list every week seems like the fairest way to handle it.

All makes sense to me. Maybe expanded practice squads too? Those guys are obviously more easily plugged in rather than the guy on the couch.

**BcRaven** · 02-17-2020, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by WrongBaldy

holy shit 16 playoff teams. what a disaster

Baldy, why 16? Why not 14? That would be 6 games on Wild Card week-end, with the #1 seeds getting a well-deserved BYE... Bc

**alien bird** · 02-17-2020, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by WrongBaldy

holy shit 16 playoff teams. what a disaster

Not really. There would be no byes and no extra playoff weeks. This is one thing I can get behind - 8 teams from each conference making the playoffs and zero byes. It seems ludicrous to me that two teams get a decidedly significant advantage in the quest to reach the Super Bowl when four teams are division winners, especially when the schedules are not balanced and identical. A 13-3 team in a weak division gets a bye while the 11-5 team with a brutal schedule (and perhaps even beat the 13-3 team) has to play the extra game. Since the current playoff format has been in place only 12 teams seeded #3-#6 have reached the Super Bowl. Teams seeded #1-#2 have reached the Super Bowl 48 times.

**PTORaven** · 02-17-2020, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by Culex

Eh.. idk about this. I just want to see Friday Night Football games.

they won't play on Fridays any time soon. NFL understnads that interest in playing football has waned since parents don't want their kids getting concussed. Friday night is the night for High School football. not big around here, but in other parts of the country (think Friday Night Lights...). for now the NFL will stay away from further damaging the HS game (for now, anyway).