Goodell wants 18 regular season games, eliminate 1 preseason game

RiverDog

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
5,670
Reaction score
3,382
Location
Kennewick, WA
I used to be an avid boxing fan. I no longer watch it at all. I hope the NFL doesn’t go that direction, but it’s always possible.
I wasn't a huge boxing fan, but I did tune in on the heavyweight championship fights. It was a big deal when Muhammad Ali fought. He was a polarizing figure that drew huge TV audiences.

One thing that contributed to boxing's demise was that they went to what was called back then closed-circuit television, ie pay-per-view. Pardon the term, but boxing overreached, misread their market by thinking that they could benefit by making a few extra bucks by charging to watch their major events, ie killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Like football is now, the sport was in decline and although people like me would tune in if it were free, we weren't avid enough fans to pay even a nominal fee to watch it. They also made this decision at a time when the US economy was going into recession during the post-Vietnam/post Space Race era of the mid to late 70's.

I'm not sure if any of what boxing went through 50 years ago is analogues to the situation with the NFL today, but it is worth remembering.
 

Bear-Hawk

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2022
Messages
1,857
Reaction score
1,138
Location
Sequim
I wasn't a huge boxing fan, but I did tune in on the heavyweight championship fights. It was a big deal when Muhammad Ali fought. He was a polarizing figure that drew huge TV audiences.

One thing that contributed to boxing's demise was that they went to what was called back then closed-circuit television, ie pay-per-view. Pardon the term, but boxing overreached, misread their market by thinking that they could benefit by making a few extra bucks by charging to watch their major events, ie killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Like football is now, the sport was in decline and although people like me would tune in if it were free, we weren't avid enough fans to pay even a nominal fee to watch it. They also made this decision at a time when the US economy was going into recession during the post-Vietnam/post Space Race era of the mid to late 70's.

I'm not sure if any of what boxing went through 50 years ago is analogues to the situation with the NFL today, but it is worth remembering.
I never spent a dime on ppv. There were plenty of sources to watch matches— HBO, etc.

What turned me off was the corruption that ran through sanctioning bodies, promoters, referees, etc. it ruined the sport for me.
 

chris98251

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
39,828
Reaction score
1,946
Location
Roy Wa.
They will still all get paid as the cap goes up but yes it's hard to put out good
teams if you're doing it like today.
Look at the Cowboys mess, this is going to happen more if it keeps going as is.
Yes it's Glorious to see that happen to the Cowboys. But you point is valid, there has to be a ceiling at some point, also the more games and practices the more injuries, roster and PS expansion with the untouchable list expanding as well.
 

chris98251

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
39,828
Reaction score
1,946
Location
Roy Wa.
I wasn't a huge boxing fan, but I did tune in on the heavyweight championship fights. It was a big deal when Muhammad Ali fought. He was a polarizing figure that drew huge TV audiences.

One thing that contributed to boxing's demise was that they went to what was called back then closed-circuit television, ie pay-per-view. Pardon the term, but boxing overreached, misread their market by thinking that they could benefit by making a few extra bucks by charging to watch their major events, ie killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Like football is now, the sport was in decline and although people like me would tune in if it were free, we weren't avid enough fans to pay even a nominal fee to watch it. They also made this decision at a time when the US economy was going into recession during the post-Vietnam/post Space Race era of the mid to late 70's.

I'm not sure if any of what boxing went through 50 years ago is analogues to the situation with the NFL today, but it is worth remembering.
Also remember the US stopped assisting in funding for the Olympics, the cash was not there to train guys like before, United States always strong in Boxing till them with the Cubans always giving us a run for our money seemingly every Olympics, we had the personalities coming thru there also, the people got to know who they were. Much has changed.

Don King and Bob Arum promotion of fights changed everything as well. The degradation of talent, the pushing of Brain Injury stories, seeing Ali with Parkinson's, the protect my kids from Contact Sports both Boxing and Football all took it's toll.
 

Aircrew

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2016
Messages
774
Reaction score
1,381
Location
Eastern Washington
They'd better up the maximum number of players teams can have on their rosters or guys will start dropping like flies. As I've heard many players say, they play hurt every week, just fighting off serious injury. That many games is just too hard on the body, even elite NFL athletes. Have enough players that you can rotate a good number of high-wear starters out so they can make it through a full season and still have some gas in the tank for the playoffs/bowl if need be.
 

IndyHawk

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
8,191
Reaction score
1,812
Define “overpaying”. The players’ union is not powerless.
There is a cap but it's not a hard one, it has all kinds of loopholes.
Regardless of loopholes, you cannot have one player taking over 20%
and now you other positions approaching 20% or more.
Tell me what happens when that day comes with 3 players taking over
60% of a teams cap?
They are overpaying when you go past a certain threshold with any player
and your team is going to be weakened just to showcase a couple of stars
or supposed stars like that QB in Jax who was overpaid.
 

IndyHawk

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
8,191
Reaction score
1,812
They'd better up the maximum number of players teams can have on their rosters or guys will start dropping like flies. As I've heard many players say, they play hurt every week, just fighting off serious injury. That many games is just too hard on the body, even elite NFL athletes. Have enough players that you can rotate a good number of high-wear starters out so they can make it through a full season and still have some gas in the tank for the playoffs/bowl if need be.
Have a longer training camp with live hitting to toughen em up.
They used to do this and had less injuries with a lot more hitting than today.
 

Aircrew

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2016
Messages
774
Reaction score
1,381
Location
Eastern Washington
Have a longer training camp with live hitting to toughen em up.
They used to do this and had less injuries with a lot more hitting than today.
I would absolutely love to agree with you, but the players have just gotten so much bigger, faster and stronger today versus back in the day. What used to work, training wise, would result in too many more injuries, imo.
 

Bear-Hawk

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2022
Messages
1,857
Reaction score
1,138
Location
Sequim
There is a cap but it's not a hard one, it has all kinds of loopholes.
Regardless of loopholes, you cannot have one player taking over 20%
and now you other positions approaching 20% or more.
Tell me what happens when that day comes with 3 players taking over
60% of a teams cap?
They are overpaying when you go past a certain threshold with any player
and your team is going to be weakened just to showcase a couple of stars
or supposed stars like that QB in Jax who was overpaid.
I don’t think any non-QB is over 14%. If they want 20%, tag them or trade them.
 

IndyHawk

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
8,191
Reaction score
1,812
I would absolutely love to agree with you, but the players have just gotten so much bigger, faster and stronger today versus back in the day. What used to work, training wise, would result in too many more injuries, imo.
The lines have gotten bigger, I'm not so sure about faster or stronger. What I do
know is since they stopped having longer training camps with hitting there has been
a dramatic increase in injuries, I don't think the players are in the best football shape
is why.
I get your answer though, I just disagree that a longer training camp won't work.
 

IndyHawk

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
8,191
Reaction score
1,812
I don’t think any non-QB is over 14%. If they want 20%, tag them or trade them.
My point is it's trending higher than that fast.
There has to be list of the highest paid players and what % of cap they are taking.
 

Bear-Hawk

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2022
Messages
1,857
Reaction score
1,138
Location
Sequim
My point is it's trending higher than that fast.
There has to be list of the highest paid players and what % of cap they are taking.
Jefferson is highest paid non-QB. He is 14%, and I don’t consider him overpaid. I will be surprised to see any non-QB approach 20%.
 

fenderbender123

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
12,769
Reaction score
2,783
If I'm understanding how the union works, part of the problem is that all the power comes from players who have already made the roster. If you make the roster, then you have a vested interest in keeping the roster size small.

The tradeoff is that a larger roster allows more opportunity for players to have an opportunity to play in the NFL, which is a good thing. Spread the wealth.
 

Bear-Hawk

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2022
Messages
1,857
Reaction score
1,138
Location
Sequim
If I'm understanding how the union works, part of the problem is that all the power comes from players who have already made the roster. If you make the roster, then you have a vested interest in keeping the roster size small.

The tradeoff is that a larger roster allows more opportunity for players to have an opportunity to play in the NFL, which is a good thing. Spread the wealth.
Whether the expanded roster benefits a given player would vary, depending on his particular circumstances (contract, age, playing ability, etc.).

My other thought, from a fan’s perspective, is that we would have 12 guys on the 65-man roster who aren’t good enough football players to make the cut on a 53-man roster.
 

Lagartixa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2020
Messages
1,879
Reaction score
3,302
Location
Taboão da Serra, SP, Brazil
I don’t think any non-QB is over 14%. If they want 20%, tag them or trade them.
My point is it's trending higher than that fast.
There has to be list of the highest paid players and what % of cap they are taking.

According to Spotrac (I couldn't figure out how to get this from OverTheCap without more work than I wanted to do at 04:50), the top five non-QB cap hits for 2024 as of now are:

  1. Trent Williams $31,568,542
  2. Tyreek Hill, $31,323,750
  3. Maxx Crosby, $30,483,250
  4. T.J. Watt, $30,418,694
  5. Cooper Kupp, $29,780,000
Williams, Hill, Crosby, and Watt have the eighth through 11th-largest cap hits (all positions) in 2024. Quarterbacks occupy the top seven positions in the ranking, QB Josh Allen is 12th, and Kupp is 13th.

The 2024 cap is $255.4M.

That means Williams's cap number is 12.3% of the 2024 cap, and Kupp's is 11.7%.

I still think some teams are starting to figure out that there are multiple ways to build a winning team, so we may see top performers at a few positions get larger pieces of the cap.
 

Lagartixa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2020
Messages
1,879
Reaction score
3,302
Location
Taboão da Serra, SP, Brazil
Whether the expanded roster benefits a given player would vary, depending on his particular circumstances (contract, age, playing ability, etc.).

My other thought, from a fan’s perspective, is that we would have 12 guys on the 65-man roster who aren’t good enough football players to make the cut on a 53-man roster.

So? There are 12 players on a 53-man roster that wouldn't be good enough to make the cut on a 41-man roster. And so on. Why would one arbitrary number of players on the roster be worrisome, but the other one perfectly justified?

The point of the larger roster in this context would be to give teams a way to decrease injury risk for their players as a way to mitigate the additional injury risk extra games bring. There is, of course, a general downward trend in available-player quality with increasing numbers of players on rosters, but given how long the season is and how much time an average NFL player misses per season, it's easy to imagine a situation in which adding players with less ability (talent plus training) could increase the quality of play over the course of the season by reducing the number of snaps injured players are forced to play.

The relevant comparison here isn't between healthy top players and healthy lower-part-of-the-roster players. It's between injured top players on the one hand and a combination of healthier top players and healthy lower-part-of-the-roster players on the other.
 

Bear-Hawk

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2022
Messages
1,857
Reaction score
1,138
Location
Sequim
So? There are 12 players on a 53-man roster that wouldn't be good enough to make the cut on a 41-man roster. And so on. Why would one arbitrary number of players on the roster be worrisome, but the other one perfectly justified?

The point of the larger roster in this context would be to give teams a way to decrease injury risk for their players as a way to mitigate the additional injury risk extra games bring. There is, of course, a general downward trend in available-player quality with increasing numbers of players on rosters, but given how long the season is and how much time an average NFL player misses per season, it's easy to imagine a situation in which adding players with less ability (talent plus training) could increase the quality of play over the course of the season by reducing the number of snaps injured players are forced to play.

The relevant comparison here isn't between healthy top players and healthy lower-part-of-the-roster players. It's between injured top players on the one hand and a combination of healthier top players and healthy lower-part-of-the-roster players on the other.
It only has that effect if you actually play those 12 guys who are not good enough to make the cut on a 53-man roster. With a 53-man roster you already have enough players to replace injured players with guys who are better football players than these 12.
 

Bear-Hawk

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2022
Messages
1,857
Reaction score
1,138
Location
Sequim
According to Spotrac (I couldn't figure out how to get this from OverTheCap without more work than I wanted to do at 04:50), the top five non-QB cap hits for 2024 as of now are:

  1. Trent Williams $31,568,542
  2. Tyreek Hill, $31,323,750
  3. Maxx Crosby, $30,483,250
  4. T.J. Watt, $30,418,694
  5. Cooper Kupp, $29,780,000
Williams, Hill, Crosby, and Watt have the eighth through 11th-largest cap hits (all positions) in 2024. Quarterbacks occupy the top seven positions in the ranking, QB Josh Allen is 12th, and Kupp is 13th.

The 2024 cap is $255.4M.

That means Williams's cap number is 12.3% of the 2024 cap, and Kupp's is 11.7%.

I still think some teams are starting to figure out that there are multiple ways to build a winning team, so we may see top performers at a few positions get larger pieces of the cap.
Like I said, Jefferson is 14% and everybody else is lower.

As a Bears fan who has been watching Jefferson his whole career, I don’t think he’s overpaid, but no non-QB is close to 20% or deserves to be.
 
Top