NFL Labor Pains – Open Thread

The NFL and its players are headed for another Friday deadline in the process of their negotiations over a new labor agreement. By the sounds coming from both sides another extension seems unlikely. Over the last two days, voices on both sides of the negotiations have defied the request for silence by the federal mediator.

What say you? Jump on here and move the discussion forward with your thoughts. And specifically, I’d like to see what bobgretz.com readers think about an 18-game schedule. For it? Against it?

Let us know.


25 Responses to “NFL Labor Pains – Open Thread”

  • March 10, 2011  - el cid says:

    Not in favor of an 18 game schedule. Because:

    You would have to increase rosters, so much for the very best players. How would that effect salary floors or ceiling?

    Coaches might have to rest key players especially as the playoffs draw near, so much for seeing the highest quality games. Might start wholesale emptying of roster of teams out of the running.

    Players would be likely to have more injuries, possibly erious one, even with two off weeks.

    Games would start in summer, the heat, or extend into winter, to cold for KC’s outside stadium.

    Would prefer dropping of 2 exhibition games but not a possibility, I know but got to say it.


  • March 10, 2011  - Haley's Ego says:

    16 regular season games is enough. It’s not broken…so don’t “fix” it.

    And stop forcing season ticket holders to pay full price for meaningless pre-season games. It’s robbery.


  • March 10, 2011  - CanadianChiefsFan says:

    Not in favor at all. It will water down the talent pool needed since you will have to seriously expand the rosters. Also, And why mess with history? All the record books will have to have an asterisk beside them. Once was enough when they went from 14 to 16 games.

    On a side note, I wish the league would drop tickets prices and that would in turn drop the salaries the players make. In this day and age, it makes no sense that they should be making such ridiculous bloated amounts of money!

    And why do the players think they deserve all of the owners revenue? No way can you demand to see the owners revenue so you can make more in the real world, its unheard of!


  • March 10, 2011  - Tim says:

    Against it. Would dilute the game.


  • March 10, 2011  - JT says:

    I liked the 16 game season, but I think an 18 game season would be fine. Most of the people railing against this seem to be parroting what former players in the press say. The players should be compensated for the additional games, but it would make the season a little longer and a little more interesting.

    Competitive balance is my big concern. If an 18 game season can help provide enough money to keep the competitive balance we have today, I am all for it.


  • March 10, 2011  - cowboyChief says:

    I’m quite happy with the 16 game schedule and think it’s enough. Even with all the off-season work, training camp and the season the players are in fantastic shape. Even with all that you see players starting to wear down by the end of the season and I’m sure part of that is the accumulation of smaller injuries that have accumulated all through the year.
    If 2 more games are added on, you will see even more of this and the possibility of serious injuries happening because their bodies are beat up. The human body isn’t designed to take the beating these guys are already enduring. I don’t want to see how far they can push the players.
    And now I’m off my soapbox.


  • March 10, 2011  - Mike says:

    I’m against it. I love NFL football, but I think the current 16 game season is just right. 18 regular season games is too many.

    I wonder if the 18 game season is simply a negotiation ploy by the league. Have they been talking about it in public for months to make the union feel they got a “big win” when the owners “give in” and drop that from the negotiations? I think it’s a real possibility.

    Curious to know your thoughts on that, Bob.


  • March 10, 2011  - Johnfromfairfax says:

    I would love to see an extra couple meaningful games as a fan but think the physical demands and increased risk of injuries is not worth it. The owners have not indicated a willingness to expand the rosters much to accommodate the games and the players are generally united regarding their feelings about the physical toll it would exact. Anybody who has participated in organized football understands the extremely physical nature of the game. The NFL is far and away the highest level of competition and to switch from two meaningless games in which the majority of the starters barely participate to two more at full tilt is a quantum leap and not worth the risk.


  • March 10, 2011  - Randy B says:

    I, personally would be in favor of a 52 game season, but that is never going to happen.


  • March 10, 2011  - Fansince93 says:

    Against it for many of the reasons everyone else has listed plus I’d hate to see regular season stats get blown out of proportion. A running back rushing for 2000 years in a season could be attainable by 2 or 3 backs a year.


  • March 10, 2011  - johnfromwichita says:

    As a fan i would love two more games. Most play off teams already have that many. I keep thing that the season is just starting while it’s about half gone. Owners would love it, or at least the money it would generate. But it’s not good for the players. Rosters would have to be increased and players compensated and provided,by owners,
    insurance covering career ending injuries. Hey, they can afford it.


  • March 10, 2011  - napahank says:

    I am for leaving the regular games at 16 but eliminating one preseason game and inserting a second bye week to allow bodies to heal. This would be a boost to the “quality” of play at years end. This would also produce more revenue (league wide) with an extra week of regular season TV production.


  • March 11, 2011  - Milkman says:

    The league is already “watered down” at the end of a 16 game schedule due to injuries and lack of interest for a lot of the last place teams. Why expand that? At the end of the season now, I believe most fans are left wanting more. I love the game and hope the league doesn’t do anything to jeopardize that. Leave it alone.


  • March 11, 2011  - dan in joplin says:

    I think 16 is enough. However, I would like to see something else done w/ the playoffs, like another round and/or no 1st round byes. Also, if they would let all 53 on the roster allowed to play every week, i think it would make the 16 games better. They need to come up w/ a better way of playing preseason, don’t have an answer, just don’t like it the way it is.


  • March 11, 2011  - bhive01 says:

    I would welcome converting 2 games from the preseason into regular season games. Like others are saying this would have to come with an expansion of the number of players on a team and I like the idea of a second bye-week.

    The preseason games are interesting to watch for the first quarter and thereafter they just kind of suck because the coach is trying out new guys. It’s alright to see that stuff a little bit, but for 4 games? No thanks.


  • March 11, 2011  - RW says:

    I’m for it. Expand the rosters to 60 players, add another bye week and charge about $10 per seat for the pre-season game(s). Upping the pay of the players for these two additional games would also be the right and fair thing to do.

    I’ve heard all the arguments against the idea from the players about increased risk of injuries which are a concern but it’s not as if playing in the NFL is without considerable peril. “On any play, your career could end”, is a common line that comes to mind.

    Would the quality of play diminish with two extra regular season games? Certainly, more injuries would cause additional players being brought in but look at Green Bay and what they accomplished in spite of losing something like a dozen or more roster players during the season.

    Pay your money, take your chances, buck up and play the 18 game regular season schedule and, and, get on down the road! Enough of the whining already.


  • March 11, 2011  - JT says:

    None of us are on the inside of the negotiations, but it appears that the Union is only willing to deal if they get a deal close to what they had before the owners opted out. The union clearly believes that litigation will be more effective than cutting a deal with the owners.

    The owners seem to only want to deal if they make a significant gain in the revenue taken back to the clubs.

    The players will not entertain giving back a lot to the owners unless they get a look a the detailed books. The owners are not about to open their books and have all their mistakes paraded in front of their employees.

    The only hope to me seems to be a third party, completely neutral, examining the books and explaining what the actual financial status of the various franchises is to both the owners and players.

    My fear is that the players will then want teams making more money to be allowed to spend more than teams that are struggling. This would produce the same result we have in baseball, a non-competitive environment.

    If that happens I for one will stop watching. I have not watched more than 10 baseball games since 1990 and frankly don’t enjoy watching the big market teams clean up all the time.

    Therefore, I hope the owners break the union and maintain competitive balance.


  • March 11, 2011  - gorillafan says:

    I like the 16 game schedule.

    What they need to do, which will never happen, is make the 2 pre-season games free for season ticket holders, or lowering the cost per seat for the year, and make the seats 1/2 price to non season ticket holders. That would be a fair solution, but why help the fan??


  • March 11, 2011  - David says:

    As a season ticket holder, I truly hate paying full price for two preseason games that are glorified scrimmages. (As Allen Iverson once said in a different context, “we’re talking about PRACTICE”….) Given what I’m paying for tickets, I’d prefer to see one mor home game that counts in the standings, and one less preseason exhibition.


  • March 11, 2011  - el cid says:

    Might add, if the NFL was stupid enough to give away/judicially lose parity because someone wanted to every team to spend all it wanted and not share revenue, we would be just like MLB. That would end any hope of pro football in Kansas City. First the Hunt family would not spend themselves into the middle class, economically. Then we could not compete with Dal, NY (x2), Wash, so why try.

    That is the problem when you get the “courts” in volved. The unbelieveable become the standard.

    I know/hope it will not happen but it is out there on the horizen.


  • March 11, 2011  - PAChiefsFan says:

    As far as the negotiations go I need clarifications on something. Do the people who make up the two sides stay the same? It seems to me from what I am reading that they change from time to time. Ex: Clark Hunt was part of the owner negotiating group earlier in the week but was not there later in the week. If this is true doesn’t this slow the process down because you have to keep bringing people up to speed on what has been discussed and/or agreed upon so far? Bob, set me straight on this. Regardless they need to get their heads out of a very dark area and get this thing done. They have the best professional sport going and they are setting themselves up to shoot themselves in the foot or something even more painful if they are not careful.

    I like 16 games. Injuries at the wrong time can turn a season so increasing the chances of those does not interest me and if your team is not playoff bound then interest fades some. Why drag it out. Is 9 billion dollars not enough for everybody? Need to make it 9.5? I saw some good suggestions in earlier posts. Maybe they should let some blue collar minds who seem to be thinking clearer have some input because the millionaires and the billionaires are not looking too smart right now.


  • March 11, 2011  - Morten, Denmark says:

    Those negotiators really need to fix this… I can’t believe how stubborn the players are… They are hired just like the most of us to do a job. Opposite from most of us they really make a lot of money… The owners, on the other hand, are aloud to make money; it’s their investment/risk; nobody will ever ask the player to pay a dime the day a franchise will be in financial trouble. Never heard of Walmart employees that demanded significant raises because the company manages to create a serious revenue…
    On an 18 game season; personally I think the 16 game format is great. Looking at it from a business perspective I understand the owners/league desire to make the season a bit longer. There definetely is a market that wants more football. Only a poor business owner would not pursue making more money out of it.
    And in the end, if an 18-game season is decided, then the players actually can demand more money because they would have to work more…. Until then; they should just quit whining and get back to practice…


  • March 11, 2011  - KCMICHAEL says:

    I think the 16 game season is fine the way it is. With the postseason included, that’s a pretty long season already.


  • March 11, 2011  - JT says:

    These Short Sighted Morons have done it. I hope that neither side makes as much after this is over. I want the owners to break the union as well.

    But most importantly I want them to string this out until we miss games so the pain can be shared by all and the short sightedness of the players union for not negotiating at all can become apparent.

    After that I hope the owners get the league restarted under non-union rules, not governed by the Communist Dody’s court, with a lower salary cap and that they force players who want to make anything to come back under those terms. Let the rich bastards named to the law suit hold out forever and never get another paycheck again.

    In the mean time, I will not spend one dime on any NFL product.


  • March 11, 2011  - MarkInTexas says:

    As other season ticket holders have noted, paying full price for two preseason games is a bitter pill.

    One fewer home preseason game replaced by a regular season game…it’s a no-brainer good idea to me as a fan.

    Expand the rosters, add a bye week, reduce offseason workload…there are ways to mitigate SOME of the additional risk to players.

    More games means more revenue for teams and players. I think it’s inevitable, whether in this CBA or the next.




Get the Flash Player to see the slideshow.


Categories

Other News

Archives


RSS


Pages

Home