NFL Offseason 2011 - The Longest Yard?

[Timby]

The proposal for the 18-game season includes the elimination of two preseason games. Coaching staffs are not in favor of this, as the preseason is essential for the evaluation of fringe players when making roster cuts; the players' response has been to move for expanded rosters (I've heard 65, as opposed to the current 53, tossed around as an idea).

 

[Roger Wilco]

I don't think that would do much to address the issues with an 18-games season, especially the increased risk of injuries, since that primarily affects the starters anyway and not the 50th most valuable player on the roster.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

My thought for the additional games would be to play 2 other teams in the other conference that came in the same spot in their division the year before. Right now the 1st place team in the AFC North plays the other 3 first place AFC teams, this could be expanded across conferences. Seems as fair as what they do now.

Which other two divisions? Say we take the winner of the AFC East. Let's say they also play the NFC East and the AFC West. That team also plays against the winners of the AFC North and South. That leaves the NFC North, South, and West. Which two first place winners do they play against? That's the part I'm struggling with.

 

[Marten]

Couldn't they play all the other teams in the same conference that finished in the same place?

 

[Alidar Jarok]

They already do.

 

[Marten]

They already do.

True, I'm misread the table. Sorry.

 

[Yoda]

I don't see any good way to add more games without it coming off as convoluted. The schedules work out so nicely right now.

For those that don't know the ins and outs of the current schedule, you play each team in your division home and away (6 games total), one game against each team in a single opposite conference division (4 games), one game against each team in a single division within your conference (4 games), and games against teams in the other two divisions within your conference that finished in the same place in their division as you did in yours (2 games).

I think the simplest fix to add two games would be to delete the 'same place' games altogether... that gives you four games to play with. Then simply match up against another division in the same conference.

So, for instance, the Packers next year will play the AFC West and the NFC South under the current system. Then of course the home and aways against the NFC North. Finally they will play against those same place finishers, one home, and one away, I don't recall which is which, but the Pack was second in the NFC North, so they'd play 2nd in NFC East, the Giants I believe, and 2nd in the NFC west, the St. Louis Rams. You could scrap those two games and replace them with say the NFC West as a whole to get up to 18.

The obvious drawbacks, assuming that my math actually worked out, is that you would skip one of the divisions in your conference altogether, which is kind of lame. Also, the same place provide some strength of schedule adjustments, more good teams playing good teams, more crappy teams playing crappy teams in theory. And it also factors into tie breakers. If everyone has the exact same schedule in their division, that's one fewer way you can break ties.

Of course having perfectly equal schedules would be kind of cool in a "it's more fair" kind of way, loser teams already get choice draft picks to become competitive again, isn't that good enough? Also, each team would play every team in their conference over the course of 2 years guaranteed. You would basically have one rotating division in your conference on a bye each year. Hmm, I've almost convinced myself I like that idea enough to accept them trying to mess with a good thing.

Of course they'll just award an expansion to LA, have 33 teams, and completely break the league again...

 

[Marten]

Can they really put in a new team on such short notice?

 

[Yoda]

Well, the financing is in place to build a stadium in LA I think, Farmer's Field or something. I don't really know how quickly they could get a new franchise in. An expansion probably couldn't happen this year, but they could always do it the next season... Commissioner Goodell seems to have a few missions in life. An 18 game season, making everything he can a personal foul, and getting the NFL back in LA.

Or the Vikings could just move there, don't have to wait till the stadium is built either, there are a couple of places they could play a year or two while something is built. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that the Vikings could move for the 2011 season either if they weasel out of their lease for the collapsodome. They say they have the worst lease in all of pro sports. MN hasn't had high interest in paying for a new stadium with tax dollars over the past... gee, how long have they been trying, a decade?

Hopefully some sanity will prevail in that situation and they build a nice outdoor stadium and play football like men.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Getting a new stadium privately built in LA would kind of fuck with the owners' argument that they don't earn enough money to do just that though.

 

[SmoothieX]

My thought for the additional games would be to play 2 other teams in the other conference that came in the same spot in their division the year before. Right now the 1st place team in the AFC North plays the other 3 first place AFC teams, this could be expanded across conferences. Seems as fair as what they do now.

Which other two divisions? Say we take the winner of the AFC East. Let's say they also play the NFC East and the AFC West. That team also plays against the winners of the AFC North and South. That leaves the NFC North, South, and West. Which two first place winners do they play against? That's the part I'm struggling with.

Say you win the AFC East. Beyond the AFC north, south, and west winners, you'd play the winners of say, the NFC south and east.

Just an idea. Dammit Jim I'm an engineer not a labor relations specialist!

The proposal for the 18-game season includes the elimination of two preseason games. Coaching staffs are not in favor of this, as the preseason is essential for the evaluation of fringe players when making roster cuts; the players' response has been to move for expanded rosters (I've heard 65, as opposed to the current 53, tossed around as an idea).

65 would water down the talent with guys who were in the UFL or selling shoes last week. But you sorta have to add roster space if you add games.

I don't think that would do much to address the issues with an 18-games season, especially the increased risk of injuries, since that primarily affects the starters anyway and not the 50th most valuable player on the roster.

Very true, other than obscure special teamers, how often do you see the long snapper or 5th receiver shred a knee.

 

[Timby]

65 would water down the talent with guys who were in the UFL or selling shoes last week.

I agree with the sentiment that expanding the rosters is somewhat pointless, but for a different reason. Expanding the rosters really doesn't do much beyond add more disposable bodies to the pile of walking wounded. Careers are already painfully short (remember, the average service time of an NFL player is 3.5 years), and it's not just the guys who play 10 years or more who end up with some really fucked-up permanent disabilities as they age.

How would adding roster spots dilute the talent? (Honestly, a special teams unit that didn't have any starters on it would almost certainly give a great boost to overall player health.) They're not going to play a shitty receiver in the slot just cause he's on the roster (unless his name is Rashied Davis, in which case Lovie Smith has a raging boner for him). He's there to be on special teams or in case someone gets hurt, in which case you'd see him even with today's roster size. It's not pee-wee football -- they're not going to give bad players any playing time just because. The talent pool would only be diluted if they added more teams, in which case guys who aren't starting quality today would actually have on-field roles to play. You are seriously overestimating the talent disparity between the fourth-string guys and the guys who get cut during camp. It's not really that big.

Very true, other than obscure special teamers, how often do you see the long snapper or 5th receiver shred a knee.

Well, 352 players finished the 2010-11 season on injured reserve...

Getting a new stadium privately built in LA would kind of fuck with the owners' argument that they don't earn enough money to do just that though.

It would, which is why Goodell & Co. haven't been pushing the Los Angeles option as aggressively as Tagliabue did in years past. (Peter Magowan, the owner of the San Francisco Giants, has been essentially blacklisted among MLB ownership, simply because he decided to build the Giants' new stadium with private funding, as opposed to supporting the owners' cries of poverty.) In any event, it's hard to put a lot of credibility in anything NFL ownership is saying when they:

1. Opted out of the CBA they agreed to.
2. Intentionally set up their massive television contracts so they could survive a lockout without blinking an eye (this is particularly galling).
3. Refuse to open their books or provide even the slightest bit of evidence for their position.

 

[Thestral]

It would, which is why Goodell & Co. haven't been pushing the Los Angeles option as aggressively as Tagliabue did in years past. (Peter Magowan, the owner of the San Francisco Giants, has been essentially blacklisted among MLB ownership, simply because he decided to build the Giants' new stadium with private funding, as opposed to supporting the owners' cries of poverty.) In any event, it's hard to put a lot of credibility in anything NFL ownership is saying when they:

1. Opted out of the CBA they agreed to.
2. Intentionally set up their massive television contracts so they could survive a lockout without blinking an eye (this is particularly galling).
3. Refuse to open their books or provide even the slightest bit of evidence for their position.

And then of course there's the laughable decision by the NFL to file an unfair labor practice suit against the NFLPA...


In other news, since apparently teams no longer have to allow assistant coaches to interview for jobs that would be a promotion, Mike Munchak is having a rough time putting together a staff for the Titans. Bruce Matthews as O-Line coach and Jerry Gray as Defensive Coordinator are all he's got so far. Of course by "all he's got" I mean purely in numbers, not in ability.

 

[Timby]

In other news, since apparently teams no longer have to allow assistant coaches to interview for jobs that would be a promotion

That isn't quite true. NFL teams have to allow coaches to interview for head coach vacancies. Other jobs remain at their discretion. It's been that way for quite some time, but the gentleman's agreement in the league that said assistants could interview for promotions had become the de facto way of doing business for so long that many thought it was a rule.

 

[Thestral]

Ahh, gotcha. Interesting that it's now they choose not to stick to the gentleman's agreement - but understandable I guess considering all the unrest.

 

[Timby]

Eh, I wouldn't chalk it up to a change in how the league does business. I'd say it's more due to the McCaskeys, Jerry Angelo and Lovie Smith being raging assholes.

 

[Yoda]

Tice having been a head coach probably doesn't want to be an OL coach forever. I can't imagine he's happy about missing an opportunity to run a whole offense and show his worth at a higher level. I doubt he'll sign with the Bears again after 2011.

I think the Packers actually denied the Bears an interview for offensive coordinator with our QB coach last year, Tom Clements. That seemed a little unusual, but the Bears are a division rival. I think if it were a 'normal' team, they would've allowed the interview.

Bears denying an AFC team though? That does seem kind of asshole. I guess they really want to keep their little harem of former NFL head coaches. Good luck with that!

 

[Thestral]

Eh, I wouldn't chalk it up to a change in how the league does business. I'd say it's more due to the McCaskeys, Jerry Angelo and Lovie Smith being raging assholes.

Fair nuff.

Bears denying an AFC team though? That does seem kind of asshole. I guess they really want to keep their little harem of former NFL head coaches. Good luck with that!

Eh, I think I'm content with the Titans growing harem of former-Oilers from the early 90s...

 

[Yoda]

Well, after predicting Tice would ditch the Bears after next season, I hear he actually signed an extension. There's a fine fail prediction. I mean... did they have to extend it the very same day? Throw me a bone here universe!

 

[Aragorn]

The NFL and union agree to mediation. Of course, there's nothing binding about whatever happens in mediation, but maybe it would help if they got her: