General I have the solution to NFL's problematic attempt to go to 17 games, I promise

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

SensoriaUtopia

First 100
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
3,205
2,532
100% there's going to be a strike.

Also, OP is making the mistake of thinking that the only risk is 'brain injury'.

Players don't want a 17th game because that's another 60m of risk for career-ending injury.
Another game at the end of the season, when most guys are carrying injuries anyway, adds more risk than the 1st game...it's not a linear risk progression, so 6-10% isn't worth it

You look at it all wrong, its not about 5 games or 8 or 16 or 17 its about plays

1000 plays is 1000 plays regardless of the games you clearly did not read my full post or are completely not comprehending my strategy I feel
 
Jun 28, 2016
12,586
17,341
You look at it all wrong, its not about 5 games or 8 or 16 or 17 its about plays

1000 plays is 1000 plays regardless of the games you clearly did not read my full post or are completely not comprehending my strategy I feel
doesn't matter if you break games down in to plays, steps, or breathes...the risk curve isn't linear.
 

SensoriaUtopia

First 100
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
3,205
2,532
doesn't matter if you break games down in to plays, steps, or breathes...the risk curve isn't linear.

LOL yes it is, it is all about the plays a player has not the games

It is not at all complicated

If one player is in 8 games, and those 8 games have him in 800 plays

Then another player is in 17 games but only in 500 plays, the highest brain injury risk is the guy playing 8 games 800 plays

You really can make no other case other than what I am saying numbers are numbers and they tell the truth

Football is a bunch of plays in a game, each play has say a .05% risk of brain injury, so the less plays less risk more plays more risk, has nothing to do with numbers of games

This is not basketball or soccer where you simply look at time on the field, those are free flowing games

Its weird I have to explain this part
 

Siton YerDong2

ATM 3 CHAMPION OF THE WORLD
First 100
Jan 16, 2015
15,520
35,560
100% there's going to be a strike.

Also, OP is making the mistake of thinking that the only risk is 'brain injury'.

Players don't want a 17th game because that's another 60m of risk for career-ending injury.
Another game at the end of the season, when most guys are carrying injuries anyway, adds more risk than the 1st game...it's not a linear risk progression, so 6-10% isn't worth it
Yup
 

SensoriaUtopia

First 100
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
3,205
2,532

Wrong, its not about the game you play its about how many plays you are involved, not sure how many times this needs to be explained but ill keep explaining

If you play 100 games and a total of 5 player your risk is lower than if you play 5 game with 200 plays

So talking about the game and not the plays makes no sense

Get your focus tune in motion
 

Inside Job

Do Milk
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
41,863
47,209
Wrong, its not about the game you play its about how many plays you are involved, not sure how many times this needs to be explained but ill keep explaining

If you play 100 games and a total of 5 player your risk is lower than if you play 5 game with 200 plays

So talking about the game and not the plays makes no sense

Get your focus tune in motion
I don't think he actually watches NFL
He is just trying to stir the pot
 

conor mcgregor nut hugger

King of Florida
Oct 24, 2015
48,220
37,331
Wrong, its not about the game you play its about how many plays you are involved, not sure how many times this needs to be explained but ill keep explaining

If you play 100 games and a total of 5 player your risk is lower than if you play 5 game with 200 plays

So talking about the game and not the plays makes no sense

Get your focus tune in motion
Respectfully disagree
 

Siton YerDong2

ATM 3 CHAMPION OF THE WORLD
First 100
Jan 16, 2015
15,520
35,560
Wrong, its not about the game you play its about how many plays you are involved, not sure how many times this needs to be explained but ill keep explaining

If you play 100 games and a total of 5 player your risk is lower than if you play 5 game with 200 plays

So talking about the game and not the plays makes no sense

Get your focus tune in motion
 

SensoriaUtopia

First 100
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
3,205
2,532
Respectfully disagree

As is your free will, respectfully I will say I am right

The radio call in also was cool because the radio host and the 3 callers after all agreed, especially because on the radio it is easy to explain, all this writing is frat for most of you here, on the radio you all follow along better probably
 

conor mcgregor nut hugger

King of Florida
Oct 24, 2015
48,220
37,331
As is your free will, respectfully I will say I am right

The radio call in also was cool because the radio host and the 3 callers after all agreed, especially because on the radio it is easy to explain, all this writing is frat for most of you here, on the radio you all follow along better probably
Not really
 
Jun 28, 2016
12,586
17,341
LOL yes it is, it is all about the plays a player has not the games

It is not at all complicated

If one player is in 8 games, and those 8 games have him in 800 plays

Then another player is in 17 games but only in 500 plays, the highest brain injury risk is the guy playing 8 games 800 plays

You really can make no other case other than what I am saying numbers are numbers and they tell the truth

Football is a bunch of plays in a game, each play has say a .05% risk of brain injury, so the less plays less risk more plays more risk, has nothing to do with numbers of games

This is not basketball or soccer where you simply look at time on the field, those are free flowing games

Its weird I have to explain this part
your base assumption that the rate of injuries is the same for every play is demonstrably false.
Compare injury rate for kick returns vs injury rates for plays of 4th and inches.
 

Banjaxo

Posting Machine
Nov 16, 2019
585
1,183
You look at it all wrong, its not about 5 games or 8 or 16 or 17 its about plays

1000 plays is 1000 plays regardless of the games you clearly did not read my full post or are completely not comprehending my strategy I feel
I feel that you are slightly off about this.

The cap you are proposing is based on the players with the highest play count at their position, and as you stated the majority of players would not hit that cap during a normal season.

That means that the majority of players will be playing an extra game worth of plays, as they won't hit the cap to prevent this.

Therefore, for the majority of players the risk of injury / concussion will go up.
 

Siton YerDong2

ATM 3 CHAMPION OF THE WORLD
First 100
Jan 16, 2015
15,520
35,560
I feel that you are slightly off about this.

The cap you are proposing is based on the players with the highest play count at their position, and as you stated the majority of players would not hit that cap during a normal season.

That means that the majority of players will be playing an extra game worth of plays, as they won't hit the cap to prevent this.

Therefore, for the majority of players the risk of injury / concussion will go up.
 

SensoriaUtopia

First 100
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
3,205
2,532
your base assumption that the rate of injuries is the same for every play is demonstrably false.
Compare injury rate for kick returns vs injury rates for plays of 4th and inches.


LOL, again, in the OP it is all spelled out. Each position has a different number and limit. Also almost no starters play on special teams, and you get more 4th and inches plays if you have 1000 plays 12 games than if you have 100 in 55 games


So that is not accurate, football is all about how many total plays you are involved in, not how many games , in terms of injury risk.

Always will be unless they turn it into a free flowing game like futbol, what we call soccer.

Also, of the 22 starters, even if 14 of them play all the games, most of those 14 will not even get to the number limit for their position, the few that are pacing around the limit can easily be taken care of with pockets of it is beyond easy to manage, 100% it will be an enjoyable result, and
getting utopia imminent
 

SensoriaUtopia

First 100
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
3,205
2,532
I feel that you are slightly off about this.

The cap you are proposing is based on the players with the highest play count at their position, and as you stated the majority of players would not hit that cap during a normal season.

That means that the majority of players will be playing an extra game worth of plays, as they won't hit the cap to prevent this.

Therefore, for the majority of players the risk of injury / concussion will go up.


Completely wrong, it is the cap of the 16 game season from the previous 5 years,

So if under a 16 game season a position had 5 year high average of 1000 snaps,

Then having 1000 snaps be the high mark for 17 game means you increase literally 0


Truth
 

Lips & Lungs

AKA - Twan
Sep 8, 2015
15,385
37,747
The NFL should move to 3 downs, then the World Champion of Football game between the Super Bowl and CFL Champions that is being rumoured about can be in the same format.
 
Last edited:

ConorMcGregorsBeard

Stewart Era Liberal
Jul 22, 2015
31,806
30,714
Completely wrong, it is the cap of the 16 game season from the previous 5 years,

So if under a 16 game season a position had 5 year high average of 1000 snaps,

Then having 1000 snaps be the high mark for 17 game means you increase literally 0


Truth
The problem a snap count creates is that it will require teams to carry more players on their rosters, then the financial incentive for the players, or the owners goes out the window.
 
Jun 28, 2016
12,586
17,341
LOL, again, in the OP it is all spelled out. Each position has a different number and limit. Also almost no starters play on special teams, and you get more 4th and inches plays if you have 1000 plays 12 games than if you have 100 in 55 games


So that is not accurate, football is all about how many total plays you are involved in, not how many games , in terms of injury risk.

Always will be unless they turn it into a free flowing game like futbol, what we call soccer.

Also, of the 22 starters, even if 14 of them play all the games, most of those 14 will not even get to the number limit for their position, the few that are pacing around the limit can easily be taken care of with pockets of it is beyond easy to manage, 100% it will be an enjoyable result, and
getting utopia imminent
do you understand that most guys on the kickoff team are 2nd or 3rd string at more than 1 other position?
 

SensoriaUtopia

First 100
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
3,205
2,532
The problem a snap count creates is that it will require teams to carry more players on their rosters, then the financial incentive for the players, or the owners goes out the window.

No it does not at all. I am catching myself here, a decade ago I would have accidentally been rude to some of the people in my replies due to me thinking someone is not grasping or not that intelligent.

Now the more deliberate me reflects back on my OP that is 3 posts long, each pretty long by themselves, with a lot of outstanding detail but as a person earlier was saying more brevity would be a help in a percentage of my posts

You still have the same 53 players, there is no extra burden in any way. Because of the few starters that you sub in for a few snaps here and there if they are pacing high, that simply means the backup plays a few more snaps. Plus the financial bonus they get is so big that even if they go to a 55 man roster it is still a boost.


You know they where already talking about adding 1 or 2 guys to the 53 man roster for years now even before the 17th game was talking about. It is one of the things that is on the off season list they go over each year. Even with 16 games they will probably increase the slots and even with 16 games each year the cap is rising. If they even went to say a 55 man roster, that means 64 more players will get to be in the NFL, another win for the NFLPA.

I have already gone over so many of these things, all the scenarios work. There is a win only scenario for players, owners, team and NFL employees, and fans to go to a 17 game schedule, with 2 bye weeks, 19 week regular season, and my play cap for each position based on the formula I gave earlier.

Cheers
 

SensoriaUtopia

First 100
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
3,205
2,532
The NFL should move to 3 downs, then the World Champion of Football game between the Super Bowl and CFL Championship Game that is being rumoured about can be in the same format.

Interesting idea but would work against what you want. 3 downs means offenses would have way less drives, and way more choppy possessions, there would be a drop in td's, and overall scoring drop for offense and more than the offense dropping visually the game would maybe look less beautiful due to so many more 3 to 5 play drives and then punts.

Evaluate the actuality