It’s 5 o’clock somewhere…
The 5 o’clock club is published from time to time during the season, and aims to provide a forum for reader-driven discussion at a time of day when there isn’t much NFL news being published. Feel free to introduce topics that interest you in the comments below.
CLICK HERE to see the full 5 o’clock club archive
I read a proposal for an expanded 18-game schedule recently in the Athletic, and let me tell you up front: I don’t like it.
The proposal is for a ‘compromise’ that would move the NFL to an 18-game season in a way that offers something to all stakeholders. I don’t support it.
But then, I don’t like the 17-game season.
While we’re at it, I was opposed to the 16-game season when it was adopted, and because of it, I don’t really acknowledge any “records” set by players after 1977, when the 14-game season — the only truly correct number of games for an NFL schedule — was abandoned.
People who try to say that season-long records achieved in 17 games aren’t legitimate because they should be compared to 16-game seasons are simply wrong and suffering from recency bias. I grew up watching 14-game seasons and nothing but records set in a 14-game season are really acceptable to me.
As an aside, I did admire one thing about the 16-game schedule. That was the fact that every team in the NFL played the exact same number of games against 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th placed teams from the season before — 4 of each. I found that symmetry appealing. The extreme lack of symmetry in a 17-game season (not even the same number of home games for each team) is deeply disturbing to my OCD tendencies.
With all that said, and with the clear understanding that I acknowledge the 14-game schedule as the ideal one (albeit recognizing the symmetrical appeal of 16 games), let me offer you this extended extract from the Athletic article for your consideration:
I propose a solution. It’s one that indeed expands the schedule to 18 regular-season games (owners stand up and cheer wildly) … but states that players can participate in no more than 16 games (players stand up and cheer wildly).
I call it The 1816 Compromise.
It’s a rare everyone-wins scenario. The schedule grows by one game, which brings all the extra revenue — from broadcast deals, ticket sales, parking fees, etc. — the owners have been pining for. The fans get an extra week of real football. The players, meanwhile, not only won’t have to suffer the wear and tear of an extra game, they’ll play one fewer game than they’ve played the last four seasons (the entire arena rises and cheers wildly).
Other 1816 benefits:
• More strategy, more intrigue. If a player misses two games with, say, a thumb injury, that counts as the two contests he must sit out.
• More rest, more recovery. The NFL season already goes into February and an 18th game would make it longer. Having two mandated games off, along with bye weeks, would serve as rest stops for players.
• More opportunities. The compromise would guarantee that younger or lesser-known players get to start at least two games. Maybe that means expanding practice squads from 16 players. It’s another win for the players union.
• Fewer asterisks. Limiting players to 16 games will get individual records back to where they were from 1978 to 2020. [BiB: Again, no post-1977 ‘records’ are legitimate anyway, so this supposed “benefit” doesn’t move the needle for me in the slightest]
I can envision some grumbling.
– For instance, teams might have trouble signing players to new deals in a league in which revenue is greater but the players’ overall workload has decreased. That might be a hurdle initially, but the market ought to solve that over time.
– No one wants to shell out $600 to take their family to a Kansas City Chiefs game only to find that a healthy Patrick Mahomes is in street clothes and Gardner Minshew is starting instead. So perhaps an exception is made for the faces of the NFL, the quarterbacks. After all, the 1816 proposal is about player safety and there are already all sorts of rules to protect quarterbacks.
– [M]aybe we grant an exception for the specialists as well. They don’t suffer the cumulative pounding other players do — four of the five oldest players currently on NFL rosters are specialists — and owners definitely wouldn’t want to keep multiple long snappers and punters on the payroll.