An 18 Game Season With Back-up Players Playing In Two Games.

[King Colt]

This screwy idea was discussed last week on one of the talk shows. The idea is back up players would play two of the games each season. I can't think of a dumber idea applied to any sport ever. Is the NFL so desperate for money that ideas like this are put on the table for one second of consideration?

[Superman]

Apparently, an owner or two has floated the idea. It doesn't sound like something the NFL is seriously pushing for. More likely, it's a negotiating ploy.

[DougDew]

How would the NFL even legally define (by NFL rules) what a backup player is? 

 

If true, I would change the roster chart the week before, making my backups the starters this week.  Play the true backups as the starters for one series only, thereby making the true starters the backups this week and have them available to play during the backup week.  If you follow. 

[throwing BBZ]

24 minutes ago, DougDew said:

How would the NFL even legally define (by NFL rules) what a backup player is? 

 

If true, I would change the roster chart the week before, making my backups the starters this week.  Play the true backups as the starters for one series only, thereby making the true starters the backups this week and have them available to play during the backup week.  If you follow. 

 

 King is screwed up. It isn't about "backups".
 Players woud be limited to 16 games. I hope YOU can see the difference.
 There is already a significant % that don't play 16. 

[coltsva]

1 hour ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 King is screwed up. It isn't about "backups".
 Players would be limited to 16 games. I hope YOU can see the difference.
 There is already a significant % that don't play 16. 

Actually, this is very interesting from both strategic and personnel angles.

 

I wonder if there would be a rule saying if a player suits up but doesn't play at least one play, then it doesn't count against his 16 games.

[King Colt]

1 hour ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 King is screwed up. It isn't about "backups".
 Players woud be limited to 16 games. I hope YOU can see the difference.
 There is already a significant % that don't play 16. 

Sorry, but the suggestion is about back ups.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

Just now, King Colt said:

Sorry, but the suggestion is about back ups.

 

Do you think it means that for two games the team has to play ALL backups?

 

Or that each player can only play 16 games and the team gets to decide which two games each player has to sit out?

[Lucky Colts Fan]

4 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

 King is screwed up. It isn't about "backups".

 

Apparently reading comprehension isn't required for "royalty" 

 

Stay in school kids!

[2006Coltsbestever]

An 18 game season is dumb period. That is too many games. 16 is perfect, why fix something when it isn't broken? It's been a 16 game season since 1978 and should stay that way IMO.

[throwing BBZ]

16 hours ago, coltsva said:

Actually, this is very interesting from both strategic and personnel angles.

 

I wonder if there would be a rule saying if a player suits up but doesn't play at least one play, then it doesn't count against his 16 games.

 

 That makes perfect sense. When you can only PLAY in 16 games.

[throwing BBZ]

13 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

An 18 game season is dumb period. That is too many games. 16 is perfect, why fix something when it isn't broken? It's been a 16 game season since 1978 and should stay that way IMO.

 

 Well, they would be FIXING a HUGE problem. The one that forces season ticket holders to pay full price for meaningless games.
Fans stay home by the thousands. Not spending $ on food, parking, etc.
By expanding the roster, teams could lock in several of the guys that are on their practice squads. Good drafting and player development would be rewarded.

 When i get a chance i will take a look at how many of our projected starters actually played in 15 or more games.

[MarylandTerrapin]

I'm not in favor of an 18 game season, but if you are going to do it, then at least keep the schedule balanced.  Similar to divisional opponents, do both home and away games against the opponents that were determined by your finish within the division.  This would account for the two additional games.  For example, an 18 game season in 2019 would have the Colts playing the Dolphins and Steelers twice just like divisional games. 

[dynasty13]

Don't care for 18 games. The 16 game schedule works perfectly, the playoff format works perfectly...just let it be.

[King Colt]

On 7/16/2019 at 3:47 PM, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Do you think it means that for two games the team has to play ALL backups?

 

Or that each player can only play 16 games and the team gets to decide which two games each player has to sit out?

If you were informed you would know the structure is not set as it is only an idea at this point. But then you would know that IF you were informed.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

1 hour ago, King Colt said:

If you were informed you would know the structure is not set as it is only an idea at this point. But then you would know that IF you were informed.

 

If you were informed, you would have chosen a better title for your thread.

 

On 7/16/2019 at 11:31 AM, King Colt said:

The idea is back up players would play two of the games each season.

 

On 7/16/2019 at 4:45 PM, King Colt said:

Sorry, but the suggestion is about back ups.

 

Because from the title you chose, and these quotes here, it seems like you think teams would have to play ALL backups for two games a season instead of choosing which two games each individual player would be held out of.  Which is the idea that has been suggested.

 

Just admit that you misunderstood the proposal and move along.  

[NewColtsFan]

On 7/16/2019 at 11:21 AM, DougDew said:

How would the NFL even legally define (by NFL rules) what a backup player is? 

 

If true, I would change the roster chart the week before, making my backups the starters this week.  Play the true backups as the starters for one series only, thereby making the true starters the backups this week and have them available to play during the backup week.  If you follow. 

 

You woukdnt have to define a back up....

 

The proposed rule would limit any player to starting only 16 games out if an 18 game schedule.   Other players would have to play the other two games.

 

Dumbest!    Idea!     Ever!

 

The idea thankfully appears to be DOA.

 

Dead!    On!    Arrival!

 

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

You woukdnt have to define a back up....

 

The proposed rule would limit any player to starting only 16 games out if an 18 game schedule.   Other players would have to play the other two games.

 

Dumbest!    Idea!     Ever!

 

The idea thankfully appears to be DOA.

 

Dead!    On!    Arrival!

 

Its DOA so this is moot, and I'm not sure everybody understands the proposed rule.

 

But, if the issue is who STARTS 16 out of 18 games, a team could start their scrubs for 2 games, play them for 2 downs each of those games, then put the real starters back in.

 

The real starters would play all 18 games, but not play the first 2 downs of two games.

 

[NewColtsFan]

43 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Its DOA so this is moot, and I'm not sure everybody understands the proposed rule.

 

But, if the issue is who STARTS 16 out of 18 games, a team could start their scrubs for 2 games, play them for 2 downs each of those games, then put the real starters back in.

 

The real starters would play all 18 games, but not play the first 2 downs of two games.

 

It’s not just about who starts.

 

You could only PLAY in 16 games.  This was the owners trying to placate the players who think playing more than 16 games in a season would be unhealthy and bad for their careers. 

 

[oldunclemark]

There is no evidence that I know of that playing 18 games is more dangerous to players than 16.

There is no evidence of more in injuries when  then NFL increased from 12-14 or 14-16

 

Drop 2 preseason games and play 18 regular season games.

Increase the rosters by a half dozen players . More jobs

More money for everybody and more football for fans.

 

Just do it

[BigQungus]

I'm not against 18 games coupled with 2 less preseason games, because it would mean more meaningful football less preseason, while still not increasing the total amount of games played. What I am against is the 16 game cap per player. That would fundamentally change the game as we know it. It adds another layer of strategy that just complicates everything. Plus, no bigger roster since teams have to mandatorily not suit up more players than before.

[aaron11]

i bet managing the roster for those two games would be a nightmare

[Valpo2004]

Seems dumb.  Who is going to want to go to those games?

 

Who wants to watch 2 "B-teams" going at it?  

 

Keep it at 16 games.  

[BigQungus]

2 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

Seems dumb.  Who is going to want to go to those games?

 

Who wants to watch 2 "B-teams" going at it?  

 

Keep it at 16 games.  

 

It doesn't necessarily mean that there will be 16 normal games and 2 "B-team" games. Teams will sit out some players at different points throughout the season to stagger it out. They won't just sit everyone out at once unless they clinched the 1st seed or something. Doesn't mean it isn't dumb, I'm just trying to help everyone understand how this system would work

[Valpo2004]

22 hours ago, BigQungus said:

 

It doesn't necessarily mean that there will be 16 normal games and 2 "B-team" games. Teams will sit out some players at different points throughout the season to stagger it out. They won't just sit everyone out at once unless they clinched the 1st seed or something. Doesn't mean it isn't dumb, I'm just trying to help everyone understand how this system would work

 

Even still I would say that you would probably have to expand the rosters if you did this.  

[BigQungus]

23 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

Even still I would say that you would probably have to expand the rosters if you did this.  

 

Oh yes, for sure

[NewColtsFan]

On 7/19/2019 at 4:59 PM, oldunclemark said:

There is no evidence that I know of that playing 18 games is more dangerous to players than 16.

There is no evidence of more in injuries when  then NFL increased from 12-14 or 14-16

 

Drop 2 preseason games and play 18 regular season games.

Increase the rosters by a half dozen players . More jobs

More money for everybody and more football for fans.

 

Just do it

 

If what you say is true,  why does the NFL Players Association so strongly oppose it?

 

You'd think they'd gladly jump on board to make more money.    But they don't.

 

I suspect there is tons of evidence to support the idea that there are more injuries when the regular season expanded from 12 to 14 games,  and from 14 to 16 games....     and there would be more injuries with 18 games.    I think that's the NFLPA position for good reason.

 

Just because the "evidence" is not well known,  doesn't mean it does not exist.