Merrith
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 18,789
- 7,362
2019 NFL Offseason: Chargers Started Early
- Thread starter Ambiturner
- Start date
Sterling
El Presidente
- 13,140
- 8,111
Yeah neutral field game. Always bugged me that teams lose a home game to play in London or Mexico or whatever.
- 46,465
- -64,874
London is too far but there is very little harm having a Texas or LA team play a game in Mexico.
Raiders would probably be better off having all their home games played in Mexico in 2019 than in that decaying shit bucket that is the Coliseum
Raiders would probably be better off having all their home games played in Mexico in 2019 than in that decaying shit bucket that is the Coliseum
Fennin
Golden Knight of the Realm
- 555
- 58
I think what I would do is shorten the preseason by 1 or 2 games and extend the playoffs.
-Increase the number of playoff teams to 8 in each conference.
-Eliminate the bye week in the playoff.
-Seeding still determined by best record.
By total revenue the 4 extra playoff games would exceed the value lost from the preseason games. You would have a higher potential for rivalry games, and fans would be able to see more big names especially quarterbacks in the playoffs. By adding the extra week into the playoffs you are not adding any mileage to the players before the playoff rounds start. I could be completely overlooking something, but looking at the numbers this makes the most sense to me.
Edit: screwed up the byes, the only other way I would do it is just eliminate the bye round all together, and find a way to fit the first round on TV.
-Increase the number of playoff teams to 8 in each conference.
-Eliminate the bye week in the playoff.
-Seeding still determined by best record.
By total revenue the 4 extra playoff games would exceed the value lost from the preseason games. You would have a higher potential for rivalry games, and fans would be able to see more big names especially quarterbacks in the playoffs. By adding the extra week into the playoffs you are not adding any mileage to the players before the playoff rounds start. I could be completely overlooking something, but looking at the numbers this makes the most sense to me.
Edit: screwed up the byes, the only other way I would do it is just eliminate the bye round all together, and find a way to fit the first round on TV.
Last edited:
Merrith
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 18,789
- 7,362
You would need to reduce the number of divisions for this to make sense, unless you're giving the top 2 seeds in each conference a 2nd bye as well.
jooka
marco esquandolas
- 15,407
- 6,670
Mark Murphy changes his tune on more regular-season games, dramatically
Interesting compromise. I think they should ditch all pre season games, move to 18 with the rule players can only play in 16.
Interesting compromise. I think they should ditch all pre season games, move to 18 with the rule players can only play in 16.
Jozu
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 6,986
- 6,295
It could work though.
Think about it. The preseason is the problem here. They been talking about eliminating or reducing the preseason for a while now.
Adding 2 reg season games if 2 preseason games go away wouldnt be so bad. Even with a 16 game player restriction. It adds a lot more value to back up QBs and back ups in general. Outside the QB position, finding rest for your other starters would be simple. Just rotate out guys who are banged up or need rest after a huge game etc. It would make the back end of the roster more consequential.
Then it gets even more complex if you think about how certain coaches would tinker. If your star RB gets hurt and misses 2 weeks he will still get to play 16 games.....and what if Belichick did some zany type shit where he rested Brady week 7 against Buffalo and week 12 against some other shitty team. Now Brady can play week 18 and 19, and what if the Patriots were still fighting for home field advantage at that point and the Chiefs HAD to rest Mahomes because he already played his 16 by week 18.
Could be interesting.
Think about it. The preseason is the problem here. They been talking about eliminating or reducing the preseason for a while now.
Adding 2 reg season games if 2 preseason games go away wouldnt be so bad. Even with a 16 game player restriction. It adds a lot more value to back up QBs and back ups in general. Outside the QB position, finding rest for your other starters would be simple. Just rotate out guys who are banged up or need rest after a huge game etc. It would make the back end of the roster more consequential.
Then it gets even more complex if you think about how certain coaches would tinker. If your star RB gets hurt and misses 2 weeks he will still get to play 16 games.....and what if Belichick did some zany type shit where he rested Brady week 7 against Buffalo and week 12 against some other shitty team. Now Brady can play week 18 and 19, and what if the Patriots were still fighting for home field advantage at that point and the Chiefs HAD to rest Mahomes because he already played his 16 by week 18.
Could be interesting.
Ambiturner
Ssraeszha Raider
- 16,154
- 19,748
No, it's still retarded. The pre-season is not "the problem". Nobody cares about it because it's fucking pre-season and nobody should care about it. It's about finalizing your roster and getting ready for the season. The owners are telling you it's a problem as a way to push the longer season and pad their wallets and you're buying it.
Also, it's not "interesting" that teams should have to take couple of either mandated L's every season or have games where fans have to watch both teams playing with their star players sitting. All you've done is moved pre-season quality play to the middle of the season.
- 1
Resting 2 weeks is STUPID. Because smart coaches will....
week 1 rest all starters practice practice and get backups playing time
Week 2...repeat week 1. Weeks 3 thru 18 play starters and use the backups that played best weeks 1 and 2
Other option rest starters weeks 1 and 18
week 1 rest all starters practice practice and get backups playing time
Week 2...repeat week 1. Weeks 3 thru 18 play starters and use the backups that played best weeks 1 and 2
Other option rest starters weeks 1 and 18
Merrith
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 18,789
- 7,362
While I see the benefit of basically given starters 2 extra weeks of reps, could be of minimal benefit to teams who change their shit around quite a bit based on opponents, and "burning" the 2 games off for the starters that early in the year would mean any injury sustained by one of them would mean missing more than the "required" 2 that could have been used as extra bye weeks for banged up starters.
I kind of agree with Ambi though, shit too complex and people don't want to not watch healthy starters play.
Hoss
Make America's Team Great Again
- 28,251
- 18,134
I'm not opposed to 18 games. I watched the scabs play during the strike (or was it strikes) when I was young and loved the games just as much. I would go with whatever the players want on this one. They're the ones getting banged up for my entertainment. I suspect the mandatory 2 week rest is more about not having to give everyone 2 extra game checks.
Kaines
Potato Supreme
- 18,390
- 51,746
Two extra game checks isn't a problem because the tickets and tv deals already include all games. You pay the exact same ticket price for a pre-season game as you do a regular season game in the NFL and season ticket holders are REQUIRED to buy the 2 pre-season home games in their packages. This isn't about increasing revenue for the owners because those revenues are already being realized. This is about trying to stop the TV deals from becoming less lucatrive in the future because the tv numbers for preseason games are well below the regular season games.
Players game checks are already connected to revenues through the CBA so whether the players get their share of revenue in 1/16 chunks or 1/18 chunks is meaningless to the owners.
- 1
Hoss
Make America's Team Great Again
- 28,251
- 18,134
1. That's season ticket holders only. At most like half the stadium is sold out to season tickets. There are still fewer ticket sales for pre-season games. But I think we both agree that's chicken feed and the real money is in television. We also both agree that the pre-season games underperform. I think we might disagree on the owners' interest in increasing revenues. I say they want as much as they can get.
2. How is it tied to the revenue? Are you saying that when we hear a contract is 4 years $44 million that the contract itself really says 4 years and .00002% of the annual television revenues? I'm thinking it's only the salary cap that's tied to the revenue. So sure, if the owners can get more money for the TV rights then it will eventually get to the players as they sign new contracts. But wait, with the 16 game limit, they will surely increase the roster limit and there goes that money.
I'm saying that if a guy is making $16 million the year they expand to 18 games, he's going to expect $18 million that year. He will want 12.5% more because his season just got 12.5% longer. Limiting everyone to 16 games shuts that argument down. I'm not sure this proposal gives them 12.5% more money on the TV deals because while the pre season games under-perform, they do produce some revenues. The owners won't want to do it without the limit. Unless they really do run roughshod over the NFLPA and they manage to do it without any pay raises. But I think we'll see another strike before that happens.
Kaines
Potato Supreme
- 18,390
- 51,746
Of course they want as much as they can get, but they are already getting everything they CAN get from ticket sales since there is no difference between sticker price of a pre-season and regular-season game. The only way the owners get more from ticket sales if they increase the total number of games.
TV is big deal and TV isn't going to offer more money for the same number of games, be it regular season or pre-season. What the owners are trying to prevent is the TV contracts DEVALUING because the pre-season games underperform.
It's tied to revenue because of the salary caps. The individual contracts are meaningless from a payroll perspective as the total amount of money being spent by every team is capped at a certain amount. Overall, payroll is meaningless if it's going to 52 people or 55. You're still paying out the same amount every year.
And that's not how contracts work. The contracts are on a PER YEAR basis and paid out on a PER GAME basis. If you sign a contract for $16 mil per year, you will get $1 mil per game under the current 16 game season, and get 1/18 of $16 mil per game on an 18 game season. The contract doesn't magically change based on the number of games. NEW contracts might, but that's not what you described.
Any agent the allows his player to sign long term beyond the known end date of any current CBA is almost performing an act of negligence because of situations just like this.
Hoss
Make America's Team Great Again
- 28,251
- 18,134
I am making an assumption that I think is safe that contracts include everything the player will be required to participate in. Mini camps, training camp, pre-season, OTAs, off season, regular season, and post season. If the number of regular season games changes, the contracts could be null and void.
I admit I haven't looked at an NFL contract, but we've heard plenty of reports about how a guy is losing X amount of money by showing up late to camp. That leads me to believe that it's all broken down at least that far.