Smith said he doesn't see any form of an 18-game schedule being in the players' best interestGETTY IMAGES
NFL owners and players are scheduled for another formal CBA bargaining session on Wednesday, and one team source has "some optimism" that the "chance of making a deal on a new CBA was 50-50 this year if the union would stick with the current economic formula of the game," according to Peter King of NBCSPORTS.com. However, a player source "wasn’t nearly as hopeful, in part because he felt the players need a bigger cut of the pie to agree to a new deal two seasons out from the end of the current CBA." Overall, an 18-game schedule is "nowhere near a reality." King conducted a Twitter poll over the weekend asking fans for the preference on length of schedule, and out of 13,533 voters, 79% said 16 (NBCSPORTS.com, 7/15). ESPN’s Jeff Darlington noted these CBA negotiations “could have more animosity than the last one, which is saying a lot. But there is so much on the table.” Darlington said for the all the things the NFLPA “thought got fixed” in the last CBA, other issues are “just going to overflow in” this negotiation. Darlington: “I’m glad that they’re sitting down and they’re going to start to work towards it. I just don’t think this is anything other than, ‘Hey, we’re at least going to put a meeting on the books. We’re not going to wait until down the road. Let’s at least start arguing now.’” He predicted the talks are “ultimately going to come down to the deadline” (“The Will Cain Show,” ESPN Radio, 7/12).
NOT SO FAST: The idea of an 18-game schedule was floated last week, but ESPN's Adam Schefter said today it "doesn't seem to be something that's on the table, that's having any active talks right now." Schefter: "It's a flashy topic, it gets a lot of peoples' attention, but I don't think it's realistic and pragmatic at this point to think there's going to be 18 games" ("Get Up," ESPN, 7/15). ESPN.com's Cameron Wolfe noted NFLPA Exec Dir DeMaurice Smith has "confirmed that the NFL raised the idea" of an 18-game schedule in early CBA talks, but indicated that it "isn't something he sees happening." Smith, speaking Friday at a union-led gathering of former players, said, "I don't see an 18-game schedule -- under any circumstance -- being in the best interest of our players. If somebody wants to make an 18-game proposal, we'll look at it. I haven't seen anything that makes me think that it would be good for the players." More Smith: "Why is it our job to figure out how to make 18 games work as players? You tell someone you're going to work longer, and you figure out how to make it work? That doesn't work. It's not our job to put that square peg in the round hole" (ESPN.com, 7/13). PRO FOOTBALL TALK's Charean Williams wrote the NFL "needs the NFLPA's approval" for an 18-game season, which "likely means a financial offer the players can't refuse." However, Smith "sounds as if no amount of money will prompt a change of heart from the NFLPA" (PROFOOTBALLTALK.com, 7/12).
WE CAN WORK IT OUT: ESPN's Mike Tannenbaum said the "most pragmatic way is to go 17 games and expand the postseason." ESPN's Bobby Carpenter said 17 "would be more palpable to the players, they'd be able to digest this." ESPN's Mike Greenberg: "The oldest adage in show business is always leave them wanting more, and for all the different things that have made football popular in our country ... the scarcity of the product remains the most valuable thing" ("Get Up," ESPN, 7/15). A Springfield REPUBLICAN editorial stated greed is a "terrible reason" for owners to push an 18-game schedule, but it is "their only reason." They might instead "wind up with a zero-game season" (MASSLIVE.com, 7/14).
QUIT PLAYING GAMES: In Pittsburgh, Ron Cook writes the proposal that would limit how many games players could play in a season "would add another fascinating layer of strategy to the NFL game," but it would be "impractical." Great players are "too competitive to want to sit out any game." Fans "don’t want to see" reserve players. They "want to watch the stars" (PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, 7/15). In New Orleans, Rod Walker wrote coaches "would basically be playing fantasy football, trying to pick and choose which games" they have a "better chance of winning" without some of their stars. Walker: "What about the fans spending their hard-earned money to go to a game where one of their favorite players isn't playing?" (NOLA.com, 7/14). Also in Pittsburgh, Tim Benz writes, "This is a stupid idea. S-t-o-o-p-i-d. Stoopid. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen, though" (TRIBLIVE.com, 7/15).
