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

[Shas]

It’s hard to ignore a couple of controversial issues swirling within NFL circles these days that don’t seem to want to go away. I’m talking about player safety and the league office’s plan to expand the number of regular season and playoff games.

I’m not the first to point out that these two firestorm issues are at odds with each other. Of course, they are both are driven by the so-called root of all evil: money.

The fact that player safety isn’t going away has been made painfully more apparent, once again, by the recent lawsuit brought on by a group of retired players who claim the league gave them pain killers and anti-inflammatories in decades past to keep them on the field, deceiving them about the severity of their injuries, and failing to warn them these treatments were merely masking their injuries—thereby not allowing them to properly heal, and ultimately causing them long-term health damage.

Whether you believe the claims or believe the players should have known better than the team doctors (or listened more seriously to their doctor’s advice), it’s easy to imagine money-lusting owners and coaches would encourage doctors and trainers to mask injuries in order to keep star players on the field, or that players would conceal their injuries out of fear of being cut and losing income, for that matter.

It’s even easier to make the connection between expanded schedules and money, no matter how many times Goodell reminds us that we don’t like exhibition games as way of an explanation.

After recently making a commitment to reach $25 Billion in profits by 2027 – that is, growing by another $1 Billion each year over 14 year-- Goodell is almost bound to generate revenue at all costs, including adding games, keeping star players on the field, and further jeopardizing player safety.

Many have pointed out that players already face a weekly grind and so exposing them to added games after the brutal 16 game schedule they already play--and then another round of intense playoffs--flies in the face of player safety.

With all that in mind, I’d like to offer a radical solution to the player safety and expanded schedule dilemma, although I am guessing most fans won’t like it. Because it’s an attempt to find a middle ground, meaning everyone compromises just a little – fans, players, owners – to keep the game healthier.

My proposals starts with eliminating preseason games altogether, and restores the old 14-game season.

However, I would schedule games every-other weekend, with a week rest in between games, except once per season when games are played in back to back weeks (an anti-bye week, so to speak). The occasional Thursday night game isn’t so bad if the standard is two-weeks between contests.

During the regular season a team would only play other teams from within their own conference; six games within their own division, and the remaining eight games against two of the other three divisions each year, on a rotating basis from year to year.

The AFC games would take place one weekend, and the NFC games the next, and so on. So there are always NFL games televised each week.

That would have the regular season games running from the first week of August until mid-January. Which roughly parallels the existing span from preseason to week 17.

Eight teams in each conference would make the playoffs, with no bye week for #1 seeds, and playoff games still played one week apart, thus still taking three weeks to whittle it down to a final two teams.

But it would mean two extra playoff games (when the 1 seeds play the eight seeds) during that first weekend of the tournament. That keeps the SuperBowl weekend close to where it current sits.

The advantage is that players are better rested throughout the year, not subjected to preseason games, with more time between games, and a shorter regular season. And the league gets a couple extra lucrative playoff games.

The disadvantage is waiting two weeks for your team to play, four weeks between home games oftentimes. And two fewer regular season games to televise. And lost revenue from no exhibition game and fewer regular season games.

Okay, to offset these disadvantages, here’s where it gets a bit more radical. I’d also propose that team rosters should be cut down to forty players. However, I am calling for every team to form a second team that plays in an NFL “B” League (to be named). That creates another 40 roster spots (or a net of 19 additional players, beyond the existing 53 active roster players, plus eight practice squad players), and creates another set of coaches for each of the existing 32 teams to hire.

B League games would be played in existing NFL stadiums on weekends when the A team is off. Rather than sitting on practice squads, these eight players, along with the last 13 on depth charts, plus the new 19 players would be assigned to the B League.

Teams would be able to freely move players back and forth between the big club and the farm team in cases of injury or merit promotions / demotions. (Honestly I’d have to study if 40 players is enough on game day compared to 45. Maybe five B Leaguers suit up for depth in cases of injury only)

So Ravens fans, for instance, would have a second Ravens team to root for and could watch these players develop against real competition. It would also become a proving ground for another set of coaches and younger officials. And it would test teams’ abilities to manage rosters, develop players and coordinate with their minor league franchise. You could even consider a separate set of B League owners, more like baseball, with league buy-ins required (more $$$).

Rule experimentation could take place in the B League. Teams could opt to play some B League home games in alternate venues. Send those guys to Europe, for instance, rather than missing out on an A League home game. Or play in Harrisburg for the Ravens. Richmond for the Skins. Toronto for Buffalo, etc.

The B League would consist of 12 games, six at home, starting the week after the first week of the A league season, and finishing the week before the end of the A league regular season.

Of course the league would sell tickets (perhaps require ticket purchases at a lower rate) for the B League games, and have a separate TV deal. So the extra revenue there would offset some of the lost revenue from a slightly shorter regular season as it currently exists.

In essence, the league would create a minor league system, with more opportunities for more players and a proving ground to try out coaches, officials, rule changes, etc. B League teams could become the de facto scout team and practice and scrimmage against their A League brethren.

Owners would be paying for the added 19 players and additional coaching staffs and travel, etc. (Like they don't have the money). But they’d have thirteen fewer A League-level players to pay, shifting these players to more modest B League-level salaries, while the extra coaches and remaining players in the B League would earn more modest salaries as well.

B League teams could also wear similar but alternative uniforms, thus generating more merchandise sales opportunities for the league. New official uniform providers, etc. And of course there would be a B League set of playoff games and a SuperBowl, creating more revenue and interest for fans whose A League squad may have had a down year.

That gives the league and an entire new series of playoff games, and creates 26 total regular-season A and B league games to sell too – that's more than the current 20 exhibition and regular season games.

You may be thinking that fans won’t respect minor league games. To help address this I would have the outcomes of both A and B league games count in the A League standings. A League wins would count for 2 points, and B League wins one point apiece.

A team that drafts and manages their 80 players poorly would be penalized even if their best 40 played well in the A League. The expanded playoffs and lack of a bye for one seeds would help filter out any A team pretenders who made the playoffs off the strength of their B League counterparts, or give more opportunity for a good team that was dragged down by it's B Team to excel in the playoffs. A 1 vs 8 match up could get much more interesting.

And of course you'd have more intrigue when AFC finally meets NFC in the Super Bowl, with little sense of how the two conferences stack up.

While it’s radical, and it takes away “real” Ravens games for us, it does replace it with what could be a new, intriguing product that helps the league feed its unending appetite for revenue.

And, perhaps most importantly, it enhances player safety by giving them more rest between games over a shorter season.

If you are still reading, fire away….

[jonboy79]

I hate the term "expanded schedule"
it is incorrect in nature.

They play a 20 game pre + regular season schedule now. In Goodell's Suggestion, that is unchanged.
Dropping 2 preseason games in favor of 2 regular season games adds ZERO games to the schedule.

The players complain because they "currently" don't have to play much during the preseason as established Vets. IMO, that is where the owners should begin. If the players continue to buck the 18 game schedule, they should simply play the Vets more in the preseason out of spite.

I hate when favors become expected, and no longer are thought of as favors or benefits. It is not written into their contracts that Vets only play 1-1.5 games of the preseason... so take that bonus away if they don't appreciate it.

[wickedsolo]

Well, one thought might be that adding more games (expanding playoffs, etc) will almost undoubtedly cause the NFL to rethink expanding the active roster from where it currently is (53) as well as the active gameday roster (46).

Lets say they bump the active roster from 53 to 60 and subsequently bump the active game day roster from 46 to 52, that is 6 more guys that can rotate/sub in during games, which could potentially reduce the wear and tear on a lot of players.

[Ravenswintitle]

Well, one thought might be that adding more games (expanding playoffs, etc) will almost undoubtedly cause the NFL to rethink expanding the active roster from where it currently is (53) as well as the active gameday roster (46).

Lets say they bump the active roster from 53 to 60 and subsequently bump the active game day roster from 46 to 52, that is 6 more guys that can rotate/sub in during games, which could potentially reduce the wear and tear on a lot of players.

that sounds more plausible to me and they could even say than any given player can only play in X games (whatever that number is). a little dicey but it's an option

[lowrider]

Well, one thought might be that adding more games (expanding playoffs, etc) will almost undoubtedly cause the NFL to rethink expanding the active roster from where it currently is (53) as well as the active gameday roster (46).

Lets say they bump the active roster from 53 to 60 and subsequently bump the active game day roster from 46 to 52, that is 6 more guys that can rotate/sub in during games, which could potentially reduce the wear and tear on a lot of players.

Will expanding the roster improve the product on the field? That is my main concern when talking about expanding rosters, increasing the number of regular season games, and even increasing the number of PO teams. If they keep screwing around they are going to have a watered down version of what was once a great game.

My hope is that common sense will prevail and they will leave the schedule and the number of PO teams alone, and focus on the more pressing issues of player safety. As Shas pointed out, adding games flies in the face of player safety.

[Shas]

I hate the term "expanded schedule"
it is incorrect in nature.

They play a 20 game pre + regular season schedule now. In Goodell's Suggestion, that is unchanged.
Dropping 2 preseason games in favor of 2 regular season games adds ZERO games to the schedule.
.

It depends on which "they" you are talking about.

When you tie together the two issues -- expanded schedule and player safety -- then it is very much appropriate to refer to Goodell's plan as expanding the number of games "they" play.

The issue is wear and tear on individual star players {the "they" we should be referring to) who play the most games at the most intense level. Taking four preseason games and turning them into four regular season games very much adds wear and tear on guys like Joe Flacco, Haloti Ngata, Marshall Yanda. The wear and tear goes from 16 games (plus virtually nothing in the preseason) to 20 games.

And that's 20 games with very little time to heal in between Sundays (or worse, Thursdays), and then playoffs on top of that.

[Mista T]

Way to complicated.

Just convert two exhibitions to regular season games. Add several players to the roster (easily funded by increased TV revenue). Add a mandatory one game time-off for most players (exclude QBs, long-snapper, kicker, punter). Season ticket holders screwing is cut in half, couch potatoes gain two games, owners & players make more $$, TV execs smile -- everybody is happy (except the purists).

[BcRaven]

Well, one thought might be that adding more games (expanding playoffs, etc) will almost undoubtedly cause the NFL to rethink expanding the active roster from where it currently is (53) as well as the active gameday roster (46).

Lets say they bump the active roster from 53 to 60 and subsequently bump the active game day roster from 46 to 52, that is 6 more guys that can rotate/sub in during games, which could potentially reduce the wear and tear on a lot of players.

The problem with that is the "extra 6" would likely still stay on the bench. Your stars/starters would be exposed to more physical danger. One solution is that all players would have a 16 game "cap" or active limit. This would give all players two games off, plus the BYE week if it is still in play... Bc
P.S. - Yes, and you'd better hope your #2 QB can play, and your punter can kick and your kicker can punt too.

[GOTA]

Well, one thought might be that adding more games (expanding playoffs, etc) will almost undoubtedly cause the NFL to rethink expanding the active roster from where it currently is (53) as well as the active gameday roster (46).

Lets say they bump the active roster from 53 to 60 and subsequently bump the active game day roster from 46 to 52, that is 6 more guys that can rotate/sub in during games, which could potentially reduce the wear and tear on a lot of players.

That's the solution that makes the most sense to me. The only holdup would be the salary cap. The cap is a fixed number. That means you would have to add these extra jobs and fit them under the existing cap. Some players are going to have to take less to make that happen. Without growing the cap it could be a hard sell to the NFLPA despite the extra jobs added. Remember that the players are expecting salary growth whenever the cap increases and not additional jobs

[Trackmaster]

Honestly, I think that the current format is probably about perfect (maybe with the exception of needing to add a second bye week), or at least it was perfect before they started getting all PC with safety and protecting the offense. Why fiddle with the most popular and profitable league? It already works pretty well.

One thing I might do for safety purposes and general fairness for the defense is to require a "safe signal" from the QB when he's out of the play if he doesn't want to get hit and wants his free 15 yard penalty if he's hit. I think it's absurd that a QB can be running a play that relies on trickery, like the option read, or handing the ball and running backwards after calling play-action the play before, and still get the benefit of a 15 yard penalty if the defense "has the audacity" to try to tackle him when they're trying to represent that the have the ball.

It may be a little awkward at first, but they should make a rule that a QB needs to show two open palms to the LOS side of the field briefly to qualify for the benefit of any late hit penalties. So the QB's will have the option of sacrificing their body for trickery, or having the benefit of getting out of harm's way.

[jonboy79]

It depends on which "they" you are talking about.

When you tie together the two issues -- expanded schedule and player safety -- then it is very much appropriate to refer to Goodell's plan as expanding the number of games "they" play.

The issue is wear and tear on individual star players {the "they" we should be referring to) who play the most games at the most intense level. Taking four preseason games and turning them into four regular season games very much adds wear and tear on guys like Joe Flacco, Haloti Ngata, Marshall Yanda. The wear and tear goes from 16 games (plus virtually nothing in the preseason) to 20 games.

And that's 20 games with very little time to heal in between Sundays (or worse, Thursdays), and then playoffs on top of that.

that's only because "they" aren't currently asked to play much in the preseason. IT is NOT written into their contract, it is a courtesy that has become expected. I think the precursor to the "expanded REGULAR season" would be to simply erase that courtesy, eliminating the leverage.

I hate it when people take bonuses, and turn it into expected.... that deserves push-back.

[Shas]

that's only because "they" aren't currently asked to play much in the preseason. IT is NOT written into their contract, it is a courtesy that has become expected. I think the precursor to the "expanded REGULAR season" would be to simply erase that courtesy, eliminating the leverage.

I hate it when people take bonuses, and turn it into expected.... that deserves push-back.

You're coming at it from the point of view that they get paid a lot of money already and so it's completely reasonable to ask them to play in those extra four games rather than sit out -- and they shouldn't expect extra compensation to do so. I wholeheartedly agree with that. They are paid to hire their own trainers, work out year round, do the classwork to learn their position, practice and play in games. Turning exhibition games into real games isn't a big "ask" of them in the context of everything they are being paid to do.

That said, your point of view doesn't address the issues I've raised. Namely, that playing 20 games is tough to ask when player safety isn't being addressed. Expecting them to work hard (or harder) for the money (which keeps increasing), and playing hurt during the year is fine. Expecting them to play through injuries and jeopardize their long term health is not at all fine.

Their contention, and I agree with it, is that piling on more games exacerbates the player safety issue. I don't think the league can go to 20 games without a solution that allows players to properly heal when they have serious injuries.

I tried to offer a solution. And, as I said I expected, no one likes my solution. I do agree that the current structure of games in the NFL is "nearly perfected" as was suggested above -- perfect from a fan perspective. The problem is that we fans (and the league it appears) isn't willing to accept that the current system if far from perfect when it comes to player safety.

The prevailing attitude from fans that I see over and over again is that, "they're getting paid millions, shut up and play; they accept the risk of injury when they sign up to play, so we don't want to hear your complaints."

That's fine, but if Bernard Pollard is right, we won't have NFL football unless we all eventually change our attitudes.