The owners are completely hypocritical here about the safety of the players. If they really cared about the players' safety they wouldn't be pushing to expand the regular season to 18 games.
Did they? I haven't been following the negotiations that closely but anyway they did push for this before so I find concerns for increased player safety rather hollow.
Why? Just because you care about player safety doesn't mean you ONLY care about that and all decisions should simply be made on the basis of only that. They also care about growing the game, improving profits, etc - as do the players since they want to make more money too. There's no evidence that a mass of injuries occur in the first two rounds of the playoffs now - the equivalent of adding the 2 extra games for everyone else. That's like saying if you care about the budget deficit, you shouldn't increase spending in any area for any reason. But the reality is that you can try to address the budget deficit goal on one hand while also spending more in some areas that you think is important. Same thing here - different, competing goals that sometimes conflict.
I don't get this? It doesn't have to be a "mass" of injuries in the two last games, it can be the same number of injuries, it still leads to more aggregate injuries over the course of the season, which makes it more likely for any one player to be injured. It also means players are effectively working longer hours so they're taking a pay cut in hourly terms, not including the actual pay cut the owners wanted to impose. Also, as r-judoka pointed out, the hypocrisy here is pretty obvious - CTE, the head injury which the NFL finally acknowledged after turning a blind eye for years, is the product of cumulative trauma. Adding more cumulative trauma for everybody is about the worst possible thing you can do to minimize CTE.
Personally, I'd rather they do away with the kickoffs altogether. I know I'm in the minority, but I have no problem with them starting at the 20 automatically every time. Hell, if anything, it would spare us all having to put up 2 extra commercial breaks after the coin toss.
OT: What really turned me against Roger Goodell for good was when he said the 18-game proposal was made because fans complained about the lack of quality of 4 pre-season games. That statement is an insult to anyone's intelligence.
Certainly - but then why not say the NFL doesn't care about the players because they are not going to 14 instead of 16? Or 12? Why is 16 the proper acceptable number? "Because that's the way it is" is not really a logical answer. And they aren't adding more total games - they are taking out 2 preseason games, which means the total minutes being played is the same. The starters might play more, but if that's a problem, then you're saying its OK that bench players get hurt but not starters. That's not at all true. They'd be eliminating two preseason games, so the actual number of extra hours wouldn't be that much. And the league would generate more total revenue, meaning players get more revenue since they get a % of the total. The overall pay cut issue is separate - that's happening independent of adding games. Regardless of the baseline %'s, players would get paid more for 18 games than 16 games. I would point out that many of the players b****ed about changing the rules to protect them. How can you simultaneously say the NFL doesn't care about injuries and then also say that they are trying to deal with CTE, which only angered players and annoyed many fans? You can simultaneously do things that make injuries worse and better and end up at a net positive. For example, if you make tougher rules, better helmets, change the kickoffs etc, you can balance that by adding more games.
You could definitely make that argument - The only reason why 16 is sacrosanct is the same reason why you can't ever raise taxes in this country, it's financially painful so the owners will never do it. It's completely true. The elimination of preseason games that veterans play largely at half speed, for only a small fraction of the game, with the rest being played by short-timers who won't even be in the league for 1 game, let alone 16, and the replacement with two regular season games, during which veterans/starters will be expecdted to play the whole game, is naturally going to increase the total amount of work demanded from the veterans (who are the ones who comprise the current union, as the rookies/free agents aren't even in it). Somewhere down the road, 18 games could result in higher salaries and more revenues, but that's not going to affect the existing contracts that would be grandfathered in under a settlement, at least not directly, it simply means your game check will be lowered from week to week. The NFL is definitely trying to APPEAR as if it cares about CTE, whether or not "the NFL" or whatever actually does "care" is a subjective judgment about an entity that is vague and a philosophical question, not really worth arguing. The point, which I don't think you can argue with, is that if CTE is indeed a cumulative disease, there is really no way, shape, form or manner of argument where you can say that, ceteris paribus, increasing the total cumulative trauma is going to NOT exacerbate instnces of CTE.
People are making a big deal out of nothing to be honest this is irrelevent. Remember the 90's was that filled with a lot of touchbacks NO!
Of course, I never argued any such thing. I said there are plusses and minuses, and just because one decision increases injuries doesn't mean the league (or the heads of the league) don't care about injuries. The league and the players care about a lot of different things - unfortunately, not all of those things go together. You could turn the NFL into a touch football league to improve safety, but that would hurt the game in other ways. Similarly, expanding to an 18 game schedule adds some problems and adds some benefits which have to be weighed against each other. Expanding to 18 doesn't remotely mean the league doesn't care about player safety. There's nothing particularly hypocritical about those two positions.
First, I think it's silly to assign a collective intent to "the league", whatever that is. But if you're going to, you'd assign it a profit motive, which is why it exists. Sure, it cares about safety, but only to the extent it doesn't affect profits and/or generate bad publicity. That's why, in an era in which both chronic and traumatic injuries are increasing, the owners have no hesitation about increasing both by playing for two more weeks. For them it means more money, which is effectively a no-CTE brainer Have you read any of the stories in the New Yorker and the NYT over the past two years about the battle to get them to recognize CTE? Basically it was not unlike getting tobacco company executves to acknowledge hat cigarretes caused cancer. Not exactly easy. And this is against a a backdrop of e guys shooting themselves in the head due to dementia, guys like Earl Campbell crutch-bound invalids, guys addicted to painkillers etc all in middle age. So sure, they care about player safety. And pro boxing people care about fighter safety - but at the end of the day they're all trying to make money off of something that's inherently unsafe for others, that's the tradeoff they're gladly making, so a token gesture like moving the kickoff line back - especially when coupled with a far more harmful measure in expanding the season - doesn't impress me too much if it's intended to address CTE. It's not much different from the House Republicans pushing through a "defict measure" consisting of billions and billions of tax cuts, but then stripping 90 million from NPR
Sam's pretty much answered for me but to add to his statements the argument that they are reducing the number of kick returns to improve safety strikes me as hollow and hypocritical when they pushed to increase the number of regular season games. While yes kick off returns are dangerous consider that while reducing the likelihood of them in any given game the chances of having them increase with two extra regular season games so quite likely any reduction from a rules change is offset by more kickoffs. As for that adding two regular season games isn't going to be much of an issues since two preseason games will be done way with that ignores that many more players play in preseason so the chance of injury for any given player is cut down and also the chance for cumulative injury. Also to avoid injuries the starters aren't usually going full speed during preseason games unlike regular season.
Should we be proud that the Texans, out of genuine concern for player safety, have refused to play post-season games?
I know it's been said here but why even kick at all besides needing an event between commercials. Might was well after a score... Cut to commercials Come back and show the cheerleaders for a 60 seconds Cut to more commercials Come back and have the offense start on the 20
That is TRULY annoying. This Wimpy Rule is just wack. Like someone said. . why all the pretense. . .just start the team at the 20 after every score and be done with it. that way . . NO ONE GETS HURT. As a special teamer . .. how do i make my bones now? use to be the WILD MAN on the return team could move up to second linebacker or something .. now. . what he is the fastest runner to see how close he can get before they man takes a knee!!! Rocket River
To me this is the Equivalent of putting a possession arrow in basketball and removing the jump ball . . . . Rocket River
