Bronco Billy Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Legally, nothing is correct. Unintentional profound statement alert! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 The point is that if ownership wanted to get 18 games worth of action out of their players, there's nothing in writing preventing that from happening now - 20 games even. So basically the notion that the players are bitching 'cause they don't want to play an 18 game schedule due to increased injury risk holds ZERO water from my perspective. There is nothing preventing that from happening now if teams insisted their front line players played all the preseason. Again, I get why that's not going to happen, but it legally could. I just don't think the players have a leg to stand on here. Theorizing that, technically, the owners could make the starters play 20 games is one thing. But, considering that, in reality, it's not going to happen, sort of makes that argument moot. Considering 1) The owners wouldn't want to risk their valuable assets on games that don't count, 2) Coaches don't want to risk their season success for the same reason, and 3) Even the fans would be pissed because they don't want these dudes getting hurt either. So, in other words, the owners would just have to do it because they're dicks. So, basically you're saying that since there's nothing but actual reality and the fact that nobody would want it to happen keeping the owners from making them play 18 games already, they have no leg to stand on? There are plenty of good arguments on both sides of the 18 game debate. However, I'm afraid this isn't one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Theorizing that, technically, the owners could make the starters play 20 games is one thing. But, considering that, in reality, it's not going to happen, sort of makes that argument moot. Considering 1) The owners wouldn't want to risk their valuable assets on games that don't count, 2) Coaches don't want to risk their season success for the same reason, and 3) Even the fans would be pissed because they don't want these dudes getting hurt either. So, in other words, the owners would just have to do it because they're dicks. So, basically you're saying that since there's nothing but actual reality and the fact that nobody would want it to happen keeping the owners from making them play 18 games already, they have no leg to stand on? There are plenty of good arguments on both sides of the 18 game debate. However, I'm afraid this isn't one of them. I dunno that I agree with you. I think it's a viable argument to counter the player's concerns about safety. The players' arguments are BS in my book and this is just another example, in my estimation, why that's the case. Granted I know as well as the players and everyone else that it won't happen, but it could and ya, if an owner wanted to be a dick, he could. In fact, I wish they would. I wish they'd announce going into preseason that their starters were going to play all 4 quarters of all the preseason games. It'd crack me up to see the whiny players and that even whinier D Smith go nuts over that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 I dunno that I agree with you. I think it's a viable argument to counter the player's concerns about safety. The players' arguments are BS in my book and this is just another example, in my estimation, why that's the case. Granted I know as well as the players and everyone else that it won't happen, but it could and ya, if an owner wanted to be a dick, he could. In fact, I wish they would. I wish they'd announce going into preseason that their starters were going to play all 4 quarters of all the preseason games. It'd crack me up to see the whiny players and that even whinier D Smith go nuts over that one. I think yours is an argument that would do nothing more than reinforce the opinion of someone who had already decided the players are full of it. Which means it's not much of an argument. Because only someone like that would be willing to look past the fact that it is in the interest of nobody to make the league's best players play in games that don't matter. Just like they don't play them much at the end of the season if they've clinched home field or what not. That's not the players whining for a day off, that's management not wanting to risk their best players in a meaningless game. Because, trust me, if management wanted the starters going 4 quarters in the last game of the season, they'd go. The coach answers to them. But management wants to win the SB. As a fan, you would certainly be in the minority in your opinion of wanting the owners to "stick it to them". Because, the second your starting QB gets his leg snapped in the 4th quarter of the final pre-season game, everyone would be calling out the idiot coach and or management for not pulling him like everyone else does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 I think yours is an argument that would do nothing more than reinforce the opinion of someone who had already decided the players are full of it. Which means it's not much of an argument. Because only someone like that would be willing to look past the fact that it is in the interest of nobody to make the league's best players play in games that don't matter. Just like they don't play them much at the end of the season if they've clinched home field or what not. That's not the players whining for a day off, that's management not wanting to risk their best players in a meaningless game. Because, trust me, if management wanted the starters going 4 quarters in the last game of the season, they'd go. The coach answers to them. But management wants to win the SB. As a fan, you would certainly be in the minority in your opinion of wanting the owners to "stick it to them". Because, the second your starting QB gets his leg snapped in the 4th quarter of the final pre-season game, everyone would be calling out the idiot coach and or management for not pulling him like everyone else does. You're right. I have already decided in my mind, that the players are full of it. And no, I'm not serious about my premise, but I'd love to see the players squirm if it were to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 I think that a lot of starters would "magically" have slightly pulled hamstrings that would miraculously heal before the start of the regular season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Didn't we hear all that stuff when the league went from 12 to 14 and 14 to 16? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Didn't we hear all that stuff when the league went from 12 to 14 and 14 to 16? Competition from the new league caused the NFL to expand and follow suit with a fourteen-game schedule in 1961. You must be pretty friggin' old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Competition from the new league caused the NFL to expand and follow suit with a fourteen-game schedule in 1961. You must be pretty friggin' old. Not that old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.