<http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5813574>
During this past offseason in the NFL, owners officially conceived their proposal for an 18-game schedule. To me, this seems ridiculous, especially with the amount of injuries and the amount of concern for these injuries with the current 16-game format. Extending the regular season would only increase the amount of health issues for NFL players--something that clearly does not appeal to the players union (NFLPA). However, upon looking at the question of why an 18-game schedule, the answer invariably comes back--money. It's all money these days.
In the past few days, the NFLPA has finalized their counterproposal to the 18-game idea. Their proposal includes ideas such as:
-two bye weeks per team throughout the season (as opposed to the current number of one)
-significantly reduced contact between players during training camp with four practices a week consisting of helmet-less and padless periods
-voluntary offseason workouts would be reduced from the current 14 weeks to five weeks or 20 days
-reduction of the amount of games players need to become vested to qualify for post-career health care and pension benefits
I am opposed to the idea of an 18-game schedule, and this counterproposal from the NFLPA is a step in the right direction. While money may win out in the end (as usual), it is nice to know that there are still organizations out there that show concern for their subjects and are willing to stand up for them, and don't just show concern for money.
