The National Football League has had a 16-game schedule since 1978, but reportedly, the team owners are pushing for an 18-game schedule as part of the new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that will start in 2021. Most remarkably, players would only be able to suit up for 16 of their team’s 18 games.
If this isn’t the worst idea I’ve ever heard, it’s right up there. The potential issues arising from such a change are numerous, and I highlighted a few below.
NFL Records
If the league went to an 18-game schedule and only allowed players to suit up for 16 of them, players would still have to break records in 16 games. But what do you think is easier? Catching 144 passes (to break Marvin Harrison’s record of 143 in 2002) with two extra bye weeks interspersed throughout the season – or doing it the old-fashioned traditional way? Records are meant to be broken but isn’t it refreshing when players do it in the same format as the previous record-holder? Such wouldn’t be the case in the new proposed format.
Player safety
The NFL is all about player safety – at least publicly. That’s why Roger Goodell & Co. would argue that no player is allowed to play all 18 games and must sit the minimum two. That way a player is still suiting up for just 16 games. But what about practices? Will a player still have to travel with the team for those two weeks? Will they have to practice? Say you had to practice for two extra weeks but you weren’t able to play. How would that sit with YOU?
Suspensions
How do suspensions work? If a player is suspended for PEDs for four games to start the season, his coach will surely argue that he would have sat that player for two of those four games, and thus said player should be allowed to participate in the remaining 14 games. Maybe that coach is correct. Maybe the team was hosting Miami in Week 1 and traveling to play the New York Giants in Week 3, and it seems logical that the player would have sat those games out, as they were winnable games. But it’s a tricky situation.
Injuries
Some of the league’s best quarterbacks never get hurt. We can count on 16 starts every year from Philip Rivers, Matt Ryan, Russell Wilson, etc. But what if Rivers sprains his ankle badly in the preseason and would have been unable to suit up for the first two games. Can his coach claim that he would have sat Rivers for those two weeks and thus Rivers should then be eligible to play in the remaining 16 games? Technically, the player is still suiting up for only 16 of 18, so maybe it doesn’t matter.
The backup quarterback dilemma
The NFL recently changed its rules to protect its quarterbacks, making it tougher than ever for defensive players to register sacks without being flagged for hitting the quarterback. Yet this same league wants us to maybe watch games of Nate Sudfeld vs. Matt Barkley? Or Gardner Minshew II against Ryan Finley? It just doesn’t quite have the same ring as a Carson Wentz-Dak Prescott matchup.
The miscues of backups
Remember when the 2008 season saw Ed Hochuli blow a call in the Denver-San Diego game early on, one that Denver won, 39-38? That nearly cost the Chargers a trip to the playoffs, but miraculously a three-game winning streak for the Chargers coincided with a three-game losing steak for the Broncos at the end of the season, propelling the Chargers into the playoffs (at 8-8, no less). Fortunately, Hochuli’s mistake didn’t cost the Chargers a trip to the postseason. But let’s say this new rule forces a team to employ a backup long snapper for two games and that player muffs a pivotal snap in overtime and his team loses and thus misses the playoffs as a result. Do we want that? Do we want a backup left tackle allowing four sacks against Von Miller and his team missing the playoffs because of that?
When do teams announce players who will sit? Can it change? What if there’s an unexpected injury?
Let’s say the NFL forces teams to announce which players are sitting by Tuesday. Doug Pederson announces Carson Wentz will sit for a road Week 13 matchup at Miami. Nate Sudfeld takes first-team reps for a few days to prepare to start. On Friday, he tweaks his hamstring and is ruled unable to play on Sunday. Can Pederson then resort back to starting Wentz? Does he have to go with third-stringer Clayton Thorson? What if Pederson (or any head coach) flat out lies and claims his backup was injured the day before and he plays his starter? The opposing team has spent all week preparing to face the backup. They know his strengths and weaknesses. Sure, they know the starter too, but that’s not who they prepared to face. Their entire game plan is centered around the backup. Is this fair?
Consecutive games played streaks
Brett Favre famously started 297 consecutive games at the quarterback position, and has said it’s the record he’s most proud of. Eli Manning’s streak was stopped at 210 after an awkward benching to Geno Smith, which puts Philip Rivers (currently tied for third with Peyton Manning at 208) next in line to break the record. Rivers is still six years away, which is unlikely, but let’s present a hypothetical scenario. Say Rivers sprains his ankle and is forced to miss two games. His coach claims those were the two games for which he would have sat Rivers. When Rivers comes back, is his streak still intact? Does it really matter? It probably does. It’s at least worth thinking of how the NFL will treat the record should Rivers one day pass Favre.
If QBs/specialists are allowed to play all 18 games…?
What if the NFL recognizes that its elite quarterbacks (Tom Brady, Andrew Luck, Russell Wilson, etc.) are its driving force behind bringing in revenue and the league smartly allows quarterbacks to play all 18 games? Will coaches outsmart the NFL by manipulating the system? What if Bill Belichick announces Julian Edelman – famously a college quarterback – is now a quarterback? Can he list Edelman as active for all 18 games and argue that he’s a quarterback who frequently lines up out wide with the receivers? It’s a ridiculous proposition but so is an 18-game schedule. And what if the league allows specialists like kickers and punters to play all 18 games? There’s another way a smart head coach could conceivably manipulate the system. Belichick may allow Stephon Gilmore to kick a meaningless extra point in a 27-6 drubbing in Week 3, this claiming he’s a ‘kicker’ – who also plays at an All-Pro cornerback level. Then he can play Gilmore for all 18 games because after all, Gilmore is the new wave of NFL player who kicks and plays cornerback.
The TV Drama
It’s Week 11 and for some reason Bill Belichick has decided to bench Tom Brady for the week even though it’s a must win game against the Philadelphia Eagles. He must feel if he’s going to sit Brady, why not do it in a non-conference game in the middle of the season? But imagine the TV cameras zooming in on Brady’s face as Brian Hoyer throws his third interception of the game, this one with seven seconds left and his team in the red zone. Afterwards, Brady is asked about Hoyer’s performance. What is he supposed to say? What could a good teammate say? Do we want this to happen?
Follow Cody Swartz on Twitter.
