Very Interesting Proposal Regarding Possible 18 Game Schedule

[mdrake34]

ESPN.com
NEW YORK -- NFL owners have been heard on the labor front. So have the players.

What about the agents?

Some say they aren't expecting much progress in negotiations between the NFL and the players' union before the collective bargaining agreement expires March 3.

"The reason for that date is it's the end of the league year," said Joe Linta, who represents Baltimore quarterback Joe Flacco and three dozen other players. "Sure, an extension could be coming. If I still believe in Santa Claus, I still have hope."

Future Of The League

NFL In a guest column, NFL rep Greg Aiello outlines the league's problems with the CBA and ways to fix the system as the game moves forward. Story

NFLPA With the CBA expiring on March 3, NFLPA executive George Atallah breaks down how the players and the union view the crucial talks. Story

• Sando: 10 things to know
• NFL Labor: Topics page

Linta is among many agents who believe every other issue will get resolved quickly enough once the owners and union agree on how to split nearly $9 billion in revenues.

The owners get $1 billion off the top for operating expenses and are seeking an additional $1 billion. The players note how popular the league is, with record TV ratings, and say they shouldn't have to take a pay cut.

"It's all about money, as it always is," he said Friday, "and everything will flow from there once there's a macro agreement."

Ralph Cindrich has been through every labor dispute between players and owners dating back to the 1970s and the union's infancy. While saying of the state of negotiations "it's fair to call it a mess," Cindrich also concludes "it's too early to panic" and when both parties want to seriously negotiate, they will.

"When they come to the time period when decisions need to be made, that's when they will get down to something," said Cindrich, who represents Steelers linebacker James Farrior and Colts center Jeff Saturday, among many others.

A key issue is the owners' intent to include a rookie wage scale, which Linta calls "way overblown" and Peter Schaffer, agent for All-Pro tackle Joe Thomas, says is "scouting insurance against poor selection decisions."

The rookie wage scale proposed by the owners would cover a five-year period. Many players and their representatives say that translates into a veteran wage scale, too, by limiting earnings for players whose average career is less than five years.

Besides, Schaffer says in an e-mail to The Associated Press, a rookie wage scale would not really help NFL owners' spending concerns, and it would damage college football by causing a rush of underclassmen turning pro earlier so they could get to free agency quicker.

"The reality is that the current NFL draft system in its entirety is a tremendous economic windfall to the NFL teams," Schaffer said, "as it provides a large source of cheap, young labor to the league signed for contracts exceeding four years."

That's not true for the highest picks in the draft -- Rams quarterback Sam Bradford signed a deal with $50 million guaranteed as the top selection last year. But, as Linta mentions, the extremely lucrative contracts go to a dozen or fewer rookies.

Devin McCourty, selected 27th overall last April, received $10 million over five years, which Schaffer said was not in the top 60 for cornerbacks. McCourty started for New England and made the Pro Bowl.

Eugene Parker, who has Ndamukong Suh, the Defensive Rookie of the Year, among his clients, sees a rookie wage scale as an incentive for agents to potentially not represent players coming out of college.

"It could be a scenario like basketball where the salaries are fixed and there really is little negotiating room for the agent up front," Parker told Sirius NFL Radio on Friday, "and if that is the case you will see more and more agents focusing on the vet players than on the rookie players."

Expanding the regular season to 18 games is negotiable in the view of the dozen agents interviewed by the AP. Each of them cited player safety and the increased chance for injuries as the major stumbling block to a longer regular season.

Don Yee, who represents league MVP Tom Brady, suggested a longer season be accompanied by increased roster size from 53 players to 58, all eligible to play on game day; currently, only 45 can suit up, plus a third quarterback. He also would institute a rule that prohibits any player from appearing in more than 16 games.

"This compromise will create even more interest from fans," Yee said. "What two games will the head coach sit the starting QB? That's a discussion that will set sports talk radio airwaves afire.

"This compromise will also be popular with coaches and general managers who want a greater opportunity to develop younger players. The NFL doesn't have a minor league, and this compromise will force meaningful participation by younger players on the roster.

"Players also would endorse this because each would effectively get two bye weeks during the year. Bye weeks afford important healing time and personal time away from the game."

The agents get their information on negotiations from the NFLPA and its player representatives. They say the lines of communication have been good thus far.

"Technically, he has no obligation to us," Linta says of union head DeMaurice Smith. "We are piano players, nobodies in the process. But he is keeping us informed and making it timely."


Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press
_____________________________________________

What do you guys think? It sounds interesting, though even dressing 58 players every Sunday I'm not sure how it would work out logistically making sure all 58 miss two games a year. Might be more trouble than its worth, but it's the most interesting compromise I've seen regarding the 18 game schedule.

[Paulitik]

I don't know about that. Imagine being in a playoff run and having your franchise QB sit out for 2 games because he started the first 16. The 18 game schedule is just a bad idea no matter how you look at it.

That said, I'd love the expanded roster.

[mdrake34]

(02-12-2011 12:30 PM)Paulitik Wrote:  I don't know about that. Imagine being in a playoff run and having your franchise QB sit out for 2 games because he started the first 16. The 18 game schedule is just a bad idea no matter how you look at it.

That said, I'd love the expanded roster.

I agree. Not only do you have to decide when your QB sits, but also your backup center, your long-snapper, kicker, punter, etc . . . Not sure how it would work logistically.

[Darkness189]

(02-12-2011 12:34 PM)mdrake34 Wrote:  I agree. Not only do you have to decide when your QB sits, but also your backup center, your long-snapper, kicker, punter, etc . . . Not sure how it would work logistically.

Only easy way around it is for two games, march out all the backups on offense and take a knee for the first play of the game and play a prevent D for the first play for all the defensive players. They started the game officially and the next play march all the starters out.

Wouldn't that work if backups played the first play? Doesn't that count as an official start?

[papachaz]

(02-12-2011 12:53 PM)Darkness189 Wrote:  Only easy way around it is for two games, march out all the backups on offense and take a knee for the first play of the game and play a prevent D for the first play for all the defensive players. They started the game officially and the next play march all the starters out.

Wouldn't that work if backups played the first play? Doesn't that count as an official start?

it said 'appear' not start, so that wouldn't matter. no way in hell i'd want to HAVE to sit my starters two games, that's not gonna fly at all.

besides, how unfair is that to the teams around the league who already don't have a qualified starter?? (no jimmy clausen, that's not aimed at you, LMAO) ok, yes it was

[mdrake34]

(02-12-2011 01:10 PM)chazmataz Wrote:  it said 'appear' not start, so that wouldn't matter. no way in hell i'd want to HAVE to sit my starters two games, that's not gonna fly at all.

besides, how unfair is that to the teams around the league who already don't have a qualified starter?? (no jimmy clausen, that's not aimed at you, LMAO) ok, yes it was

The Panther's rep is seeking a team specific rule allowing them to sit Clausen all 16 games, lol.

[Beef]

I don't understand all the negativity about an 18 game schedule. All they're doing is reducing the 4 pre-season games down to 2 & making the other 2 regular season games. I know starters usually only play about 2 quarters of any pre-season game & maybe only 1 quarter of the 4th game, but is it seriously going to make THAT much difference adding like 4-5 quarters of actual play to the starters?

They'll get raises for it. They'll expand the rosters & make it easier to implement rotations & rest players. And most of all, the fans who pay full price for pre-season will finally get their money's worth for a change.

There's a lot of sandy vagina whining going on by the players on this one IMO.

As for the idea about sitting starters 2 games, that's just stupid.

[phalcon phil]

I wouldn't have a problem with the players sitting 2 games scenario. It would definitely make for interesting situations late in the season.

[Chuck Norris]

18 games is just ****ing retarded.

[papachaz]

(02-12-2011 05:42 PM)phalcon phil Wrote:  I wouldn't have a problem with the players sitting 2 games scenario. It would definitely make for interesting situations late in the season.

yeah, that would give you and your alter ego(s) a lot more fodder for whining and complaining and second guessing the staff about. i can see why you'd like that