Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

How about this idea, to settle both crowds of the concussion issue?- The league increases to an 18-game per regular season schedule, but every player must be inactive for four regular season games. This way, the schedule increases, but each star plays the same number of games but it is less games, 14 instead of 16, and it forces teams to have larger rosters, and rely more on second and third string QB's along with their practice team, and they can't use the inactive list to hide injured players. I think both the owners and players union would immediately agree to such a plan.

Here's how you pick the players who are off every week. There should be a drawing to pull roster assignment plans out of a hat at meetings held the weekend before the season starts. At that time, all the NFL Head Coaches of a team designee shows up in New York City or an assigned site; said person will show up with a 53 person roster depth chart, so you have a depth chart for each team and know who the third string QB is for each team and who the second string tailback is for that team etc. There is a fishbowl or something with 32 envelopes inside. Each envelope contains a computer-designed plan to randomly remove players from the roster each of the eighteen weeks of the season so that the overall quality is not affected any worse than the other weeks, and that too many key players are not removed in any given week.

The Panthers Coach would draw a card that would state, such that their starting QB would have to sit out the first, sixth, tenth and fourteenth weeks of their team's regular season schedule, and their second string QB would sit our weeks two, three, eleven and fifteen, and so on. He would also have instructions for his starting running back, and his starting left guard, and his punter and so on. He would also have lists of the name of his starting quarterback, his starting running back, his starting running back, and at that point everybody would know which weeks and against whom they would have to sit. Every other team would draw a plan, which would be different. No team would get hurt too bad in the long run because all teams would be affected equally based on their quality.

For this reason, sometimes Tom Brady might have to sit on the bench in a key game against Pittsburgh or Baltimore in December, or Dak Prescott is inactive for the Thanksgiving game in Dallas, but that's the way the cookie crumbles, and there's a two in nine chance of it happening and he won't find out until his coach draws the random envelope out of the hat. This would work.

Ronfitch wrote:The owners will vote to penalizing teams for players kneeling during the ... oh, never mind.

The majority of fans were outraged by this and the league was being hurt financially. This was not shocking but rather very predictable

sheajets wrote:

Ronfitch wrote:The owners will vote to penalizing teams for players kneeling during the ... oh, never mind.

The majority of fans were outraged by this and the league was being hurt financially. This was not shocking but rather very predictable

I don't know about outrage nor about the majority...49% disapproved and 43% approved. Meanwhile, NFL revenue went up from slightly under $14 billion in 2016 to slightly over $14 billion in 2017.

Stadium economics will change the way football is organized. No new stadiums will be built for just a single football team.

The Jaguars will move to London, where they will share a stadium with the "other" kind of football. Another team will move to Mexico City for the same reason.

Chicago will see the return of a second franchise to occupy the stadium that replaces Soldier Field.

The Ravens and Redskins will end up sharing a stadium.

One team will move to the Bay Area, and share a stadium with the 49ers.

We're going to see at least one team move that, today, would be considered unthinkable: Green Bay, Kansas City, New Orleans, for example, as a result of stadiums becoming obsolete and the home cities not being willing to fund a replacement. Or, as a result of the owner dying, the gargantuan tax bill on the heirs, and the new owner looking for a better situation somewhere else.

If somebody figures out how to invent the Astroturf version of a baseball infield, they will get very, very rich. That will reopen the door to stadiums shared by baseball and football teams.

It wouldn't surprise me if teams moved to both Toronto and Montreal, where they shared their stadiums with the Argonauts and Alouettes, respectively, and where the NFL's presence served to increase the popularity of the CFL teams.

sheajets wrote:

Ronfitch wrote:The owners will vote to penalizing teams for players kneeling during the ... oh, never mind.

The majority of fans were outraged by this and the league was being hurt financially. This was not shocking but rather very predictable

You're absolutely right, this was not shocking. See, Ron was making a joke and it was a good one. An unfinished sentence and "oh, never mind" are standard comedy fare,

Green Bay moving with their ownership structure? Doubtful. If I had to pick a candidate for the most likely move in the near future, it would probably be Buffalo.

The Buffalo Bills are not going to move. The Pegulas have fully committed to, and invested in, Buffalo. Terry Pegula's passion is hockey, and owning the Sabres. If he moved the Bills, or sold the Bills to someone who moved them, then there would be a tremendous backlash against the Sabres.

The Buffalo Bills are not going to move. The Pegulas have fully committed to, and invested in, Buffalo. Terry Pegula's passion is hockey, and owning the Sabres. If he moved the Bills, or sold the Bills to someone who moved them, then there would be a tremendous backlash against the Sabres.

Agreed. He would have to sell off both teams simultaneously. And then never show his face in western New York again.

This just popped into my head and I'll admit I'm just throwing a dart with this one.
Within the next 20 years we'll have our first NFL regular season that has every team's record between 6-10 and 10-6.

ChrisBabcock wrote:This just popped into my head and I'll admit I'm just throwing a dart with this one.
Within the next 20 years we'll have our first NFL regular season that has every team's record between 6-10 and 10-6.

Won't happen. Ever. Even in true parity, where every team was equal in every single way, due to the law of averages, it is very, very unlikely that it would ever happen. For one thing, there is a point somewhere around 25 percent where on any given Sunday any team on average can beat any other team due to unforseen flukes, such as a gimme last second field goal is shanked, or one team has a statistical advantage over the other team but still loses the game, or an injury to a key player that causes the favored team to win, or some player on the underdog team has the game of his life, or a tipped pass that turns into the winning score, or any one of a hundred other reasons. Sometimes, it is something as small as a missed block that allows a long touchdown run.

I know this 25 percent range for flukes is true because no matter how smart the so-called experts are, none of them can pick the winners of all regular season pro football games before the fact at better than a 75 percent clip over the course of the regular season. No matter how you pick them, no matter what type of system you use, there is a wall where you cannot pick more than 75 percent of the winners week after week. With that being said, if you are picking good vs. bad games, a good team (say, New England) against a bad team (say, Cleveland), those probabilities are much higher. At that point, the probability of picking the winner goes up to about 90 percent. But in any given week, there are usually three or four games which are total toss-ups, and it is how you pick those which really decides how good you are at picking games.