USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
NFL 2010 - Cap & Trade
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: NFL 2010 - Cap & Trade
Good argument.
You want two more games of collisions? Do you want the Super Bowl champion to be whomever still has enough players to field a team?
Good argument.
You want two more games of collisions? Do you want the Super Bowl champion to be whomever still has enough players to field a team?
WeWantMore
New member
Re: NFL 2010 - Cap & Trade
No, of course not. I think 18 games is a bad idea. However, I don't think you can point to any of these Week 1 injuries as an argument for why 18 games would be bad. It's football. Football is violent. Injuries happen (especially on a field in as poor shape as Philly's was.)
To me, injuries that argue against an 18 game season are those "wear and tear" type of injuries that come around later in the season.
No, of course not. I think 18 games is a bad idea. However, I don't think you can point to any of these Week 1 injuries as an argument for why 18 games would be bad. It's football. Football is violent. Injuries happen (especially on a field in as poor shape as Philly's was.)
To me, injuries that argue against an 18 game season are those "wear and tear" type of injuries that come around later in the season.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: NFL 2010 - Cap & Trade
I fear Rich Eisen may have hit the mark when Peter King tweeted "Jenkins, Sanders, Grant in span of 3 hrs. Yep that 18-gm schedule's a great idea" and he replied: "What if its the only way a CBA gets done?"
I have a bad feeling about this.
I fear Rich Eisen may have hit the mark when Peter King tweeted "Jenkins, Sanders, Grant in span of 3 hrs. Yep that 18-gm schedule's a great idea" and he replied: "What if its the only way a CBA gets done?"
I have a bad feeling about this.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: NFL 2010 - Cap & Trade
just so i'm clear... the only way those guys don't get hurt is if they have a zero-game schedule. right?
just so i'm clear... the only way those guys don't get hurt is if they have a zero-game schedule. right?
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: NFL 2010 - Cap & Trade
...and my bets for this year are in. i have 450 spread over three teams (ATL, TEN, PIT). if any of those three win i'll collect 4250/4100/4200.
3 in a row would be nice.
...and my bets for this year are in. i have 450 spread over three teams (ATL, TEN, PIT). if any of those three win i'll collect 4250/4100/4200.
3 in a row would be nice.
Re: NFL 2010 - Cap & Trade
It pains me to agree so strongly with Colin Cowherd, but...does anyone else think the Jets are just fine?
It pains me to agree so strongly with Colin Cowherd, but...does anyone else think the Jets are just fine?
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: NFL 2010 - Cap & Trade
no. they sucked last year and only made the playoffs because teams rested players the last two weeks and the stillers had their annual "post SB winning slide". the funny thing is though, they were better last year than they are this year.
on the good side, the bills will at least keep them out of last place.
no. they sucked last year and only made the playoffs because teams rested players the last two weeks and the stillers had their annual "post SB winning slide". the funny thing is though, they were better last year than they are this year.
on the good side, the bills will at least keep them out of last place.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: NFL 2010 - Cap & Trade
Next year.
just so i'm clear... the only way those guys don't get hurt is if they have a zero-game schedule. right?
Next year.
jmh
win or lose, we booze
Re: NFL 2010 - Cap & Trade
Was my group of friends the only group of people on Sunday laughing at the irony of a black guy named "Ar[y]an"?
Re: NFL 2010 - Cap & Trade
If anything, the league should stay at 16 games and reduce the preseason by a game or two. Four preseason games is too many.
Jhm - no. In fact, someone on this board came up with the idea of having a website devoted to him called "arian nation".
The strongest argument against an 18 game schedule is this: we already have teams resting their starters in the final week or two of the regular season since they've clinched home field and have "nothing to play for". A longer schedule will lead to them doing this over a period of a month (or more). At the other end of the spectrum, you'll have the bad teams mathematically eliminated from playoff consideration with more games to play. Both of these things will lower fan interest and ratings - which will ultimately cost the league money.
If anything, the league should stay at 16 games and reduce the preseason by a game or two. Four preseason games is too many.
Jhm - no. In fact, someone on this board came up with the idea of having a website devoted to him called "arian nation".
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: NFL 2010 - Cap & Trade
You do realize that teams won't be clinching that much earlier if at all because there are 2 more games on the schedule...the colts clinched and finished 14-2, the Chargers were 13-3. If there 2 more games, the colts wouldn't have clinched until week 17 (after 16 games) if they had managed to start the season 16-0 and the chargers still went 13-3 in their first 16 games. Odds really aren't that likely that the best teams will clinch that much earlier.The strongest argument against an 18 game schedule is this: we already have teams resting their starters in the final week or two of the regular season since they've clinched home field and have "nothing to play for". A longer schedule will lead to them doing this over a period of a month (or more). At the other end of the spectrum, you'll have the bad teams mathematically eliminated from playoff consideration with more games to play. Both of these things will lower fan interest and ratings - which will ultimately cost the league money.
If anything, the league should stay at 16 games and reduce the preseason by a game or two. Four preseason games is too many.
Jhm - no. In fact, someone on this board came up with the idea of having a website devoted to him called "arian nation".
Re: NFL 2010 - Cap & Trade
It isn't just applicable to the top seed - it's also applicable to the other seeds as they get locked-in and can't improve. Given that this side of the argument is far more complicated, I should've just focused on the large number of teams being eliminated and having most of the fans no longer interested with more time left on the schedule than is currently the case.
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: NFL 2010 - Cap & Trade
EDIT: I personally thought the solution would be to cut out 2 preseason games and go up to 17 games and have each team play one game somewhere else...like in Los Angeles, Toronto, Edmonton, London, Mexico City, Berlin, Madrid, Rome, etc. You would just have to time the across the pond games to come before the teams bye week.
Thats true but was it that big of a deal to go from 14 to 16?
EDIT: I personally thought the solution would be to cut out 2 preseason games and go up to 17 games and have each team play one game somewhere else...like in Los Angeles, Toronto, Edmonton, London, Mexico City, Berlin, Madrid, Rome, etc. You would just have to time the across the pond games to come before the teams bye week.
Last edited:
SteveF
* * * * *
Re: NFL 2010 - Cap & Trade
yes. the "more injuries" is the stupidest argument ever. but consider the source.
just so i'm clear... the only way those guys don't get hurt is if they have a zero-game schedule. right?
yes. the "more injuries" is the stupidest argument ever. but consider the source.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: NFL 2010 - Cap & Trade
There is a chance for more injuries. There's more regular season games. You know, those games where the players play "for real" (as opposed to the preseason games, where the starters play anywhere from a series to 3 quarters).
Example: Game 2 of the regular season would be played instead of Week 4 or preseason, when few starters play more than a couple plays at best. The intensity is far greater in the former than the latter, and increases the chances that the starters get hurt.
There is a chance for more injuries. There's more regular season games. You know, those games where the players play "for real" (as opposed to the preseason games, where the starters play anywhere from a series to 3 quarters).
Example: Game 2 of the regular season would be played instead of Week 4 or preseason, when few starters play more than a couple plays at best. The intensity is far greater in the former than the latter, and increases the chances that the starters get hurt.
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: NFL 2010 - Cap & Trade
The risk is always there, why not have few teams in the playoffs to protect the players...I think the NFL owners point is if they want to keep getting 59% of the revenue, the players need to have more "meaningful" games.
Than why have a season at all?
The risk is always there, why not have few teams in the playoffs to protect the players...I think the NFL owners point is if they want to keep getting 59% of the revenue, the players need to have more "meaningful" games.Re: NFL 2010 - Cap & Trade
I'm just pointing out that the risk is indeed greater, given the increased number of games. That's all.
There's 16 chances (games) for a guy to get hurt right now. That could increase to 18 chances (games) for a guy to get hurt if they follow this plan.
Say, I'll punch you in the face 16 times, and give you a dollar each time. You may get hurt, you may not.
How about I punch you 18 times, and I'll give you a dollar (or I may only give you 75 cents, depending on the new agreement we have)? You may get hurt, you may not.
Which would you choose?
Than why have a season at all?
I'm just pointing out that the risk is indeed greater, given the increased number of games. That's all.
There's 16 chances (games) for a guy to get hurt right now. That could increase to 18 chances (games) for a guy to get hurt if they follow this plan.
Say, I'll punch you in the face 16 times, and give you a dollar each time. You may get hurt, you may not.
How about I punch you 18 times, and I'll give you a dollar (or I may only give you 75 cents, depending on the new agreement we have)? You may get hurt, you may not.
Which would you choose?
- Status