The NFL has put the idea of an 18-game schedule on the table as part of the negotiating process. Among fans, this has become the largest point of debate.
While more games is a good thing when you think about it from a certain angle, the idea falls flat on many other levels. As a result, there isn't as much support for an 18-game season as the owners wanted to see.
But one man has a possible solution to this dilemma. It would allow both sides to claim victory in the process—if only it would work.
I'm a Cleveland Browns fan, and while reading through the Cleveland Plain Dealer this past Sunday, I came across this tidbit:
"It seems to me that there's a very simple solution to this whole 18-game schedule mess. The NFL would just have to make a rule that each player can only be active for 16 games. That way the players don't technically play any more games, and they get two weeks off.
Second-stringers will get more playing time and a chance to shine too. Plus, the record books wouldn't be made obsolete. It would be a win-win situation for both the players and owners."—Brad Grzyb, Cleveland Plain Dealer.
The full article, plus Tony Grossi's response, can be found here.
This idea sounds great at first pass, but there are problems. Since I like the idea on the surface I'm going to break it down to all of its pros and cons.