I was watching the nfl network last night and they were saying it is a strong possibility not next year but the following year in 2012. They brought up some concerns that have to be explored before it can be agreed on such as starting the season earlier, increasing the roster size, injury reserve list. My question is how many of you would prefer to have the extended season and what are your thoughts on the matter. I believe that most fans will agree on that they should pass this and I am one of them.
The following year would be 2012. In my opinion they need to focus on allowing a few more teams in the playoffs. Not that i was upset(being a phins fan) but the year we won the division, the pats were 11-5 and deserved to be in the playoffs and that was more of a flaw than only having 16 games.
Worst idea in the history of the league. Well maybe not Ryan leaf bad, but still a terrible idea. I think USA Today had a poll on this and it was 66% against and 34% for. I keep hearing the comish say things like the fans don't want so many preseason games as a way to justify this. I think he has it wrong there, fans don't want to have to pay full price for preseason games and season ticket holders don't like being forced into buying tickets for 2 meaningless games. I was over at Cris Collinsworths site and he brought up the idea that the league could be using this as a bargaining chip in the labor negotiations. I thought that was an interesting idea. He also had arguments why 18 games are a bad idea. Here's the article, http://footballproslive.com/content.php/375-18-Game-Schedule-a-Bad-Idea?
This brought up many points that I never thought about before and you just made me change my mind simply because that the more games there are the less important each game becomes. I believe that is the main reason why it football is the greatest sport, because every single game counts. Baseball, hockey, your team can lose 10 in a row and in the end if your team is good you can still succeed so as a fan you are always saying o well well do better next month.
College kids already have enough of a jump to make. This would only increase injuries and concussions. It's probably already too many games...I'd probably start playing baseketball.
I am all for anything that leads to more football games to watch. I'm not sure why people expect to see this dramatic increase in injuries. Just look at all of the playoff teams that play 2 extra games at the end of the year. Do they suddenly start dropping like flies? I'm sure the same arguments were made when they made the jump from 12 games to 14 and then 14 to 16.
I'm not sure I agree with why "it's bad". I think most fans would do anything to see their team play a couple more regular season games. I think in order for this to happen, you'd have to expand the rosters (I think we brought this up before) to try and keep players fresher through the season. Think of the issues we face in training camp now, having to cut players like Sheets and one of our good looking young receivers. expand the rosters by 6-8 players.
Well if the season is expanded to 18 games there's no doubt that the preseason games must be cut down. Also, i think that rosters should be expanded slightly to help accomodate injuries. I still believe playoffs become an issue because theyre could very well be good teams that go 11-7 and miss out because only 6 teams per conference get in.
Yea the idea is the more games will replace the preseason games so there would only be 2 preseason games in this situation.
My main concern is the development of younger players. I think if 2 pre-season games were cut out, the younger guys that need time to develop wouldn't get in a lot of the reps they get now, and you'd see a "watered-down" product on the field. The 2 preseason games would see more starters playing and trying to get in sync and really stunt the growth of some younger players.
I think its a great idea, you have players getting hurt in preseason games anyway. Most players hate preseason, so give them only two games and get on with the season.
The owners must realize that, if it did happen, something would have to be done to extend preseason or training camp for evaluation purposes. On the other hand, with an expanded roster, you can keep em on and groom them a bit more during the beginning of the season
I don't agree with a lot of the arguments against expanding the schedule to 18 games. At least, not the ones presented by Cris Collinsworth. Based on his logic, one negative outcome is a reduction in ticket prices and ticket sales? Ticket prices are ridiculous as it stands, so anything that might bring prices down surely doesn't sound like a bad thing to me. As for the injury concerns, etc., I think expanded rosters and the year round conditioning that most teams employ will minimize the impact of that, more or less. I don't recal a huge spike in injuries when they went from 14 to 16 games. I also don't agree with his "Star Power" argument. I watch football to see good football. And, seeing the new/young players come into and develop in the NFL is all part of that. The only real issue that I sort of agree with is the timing issue. I agree playing games that count in August doesn't make much sense. But, playing a couple extra weeks into January doesn't sound like a terribly bad idea (to me anyway). Take away the extra week off between the conference championship games and the SB to offset the extra bye week. Bottom line, and the way I see it...if it generates more revenue (and, it will), it will happen. Although, it could very be nothing more than a bargaining chip for the new labor agreement, as has been suggested. Could be the end result is adding one extra game (does the schedule have to be an even number of games)? For me, if it means watching my Dolphins one or two more times a season, games that count, well hell yeah...I'm all for it. It ain't my *** on the line.
I'm all for 2 more games. The arguement that it will lesson the importance of games is silly. When you have two more games and your only one game out, how important will those games be then? Very. And it will ensure no one ever gets to undefeated again. The Phins will forever stand alone.
From what I read they would start after labor day and the season would last longer. There is that big break in Feb where there is really no sports, I believe the plan would be to have the superbowl on Presidents Day weekend, hence most people are off that Monday.
I was listening to the radio the other day, and the guy talking about it was claiming that the players are very, very against going to an 18 game schedule. Not really much more to add opinion wise, I've got mixed feelings on this one.
If it goes to 18 games you can guarantee there will be more International games. Its about $$$. Pure and simple.
Me too. The preseason is too long, but 16 regular season games is the way it should be. The NFL cannot claim to care about player health if they're going to add 2 more regular season games. Expanded rosters sound nice. But honestly, the bottom of any roster isn't very good. Are they supposed to just mix those guys in? Sit the stars down for extended periods of time? What about on the offensive line? Are you going to start rotating there? Of course not, it's counter-productive up front. No, expanded rosters will be necessary because there will be more wear and tear on players and more injuries. It's all about money and leverage. Has nothing to do with enhancing the fan experience.
Absolutely. That's directly part of it. We'll play more 'home' games in Europe, Mexico, etc. All about that almighty dollar.
Pardon me, but duh. The whole reason owners are involved in the NFL is to make $. Sure they may enjoy it, but they sure as hell aren't here to break even or come out at a loss.
I meant to broaden the NFL to the overseas market. But thanks for stating the obvious regarding finance in the business and sports industry. duh.
I'm going to go out on a limb here but it's supposed to be about the money. The same reason Vincent Jackson can make an *** of himself and Darelle Revis can ask for 16m/year is the same reason the owners want this. I often see people make the argument that the player needs to feed his family etc. etc. but when reciprocated to the owner wanting to make more money it becomes EVIL! This whole thing is about the money because despite the entertainment value, the NFL is a group of 32 business franchises operating for the sole purpose of maximizing profits. Sometimes people forget that businesses are in their field of operation to make money.
I hate international games, its not fare that fans who love going to the games will need to stay home and watch from their house because Goddell and the other rich SOB's like going across the pound to get more money. If they want to have international games they should do the preseason games international. that is IMO of course.
I'm probably in the tiniest minority ever here and will probably sound pretty wierd as UK based fans benefit but I'm not a fan of the international games either..part of me is a traditionalist and takes away homefield advantage for teams. Season ticket holders get screwed and the majority of the crowds haven't a clue whats going on becuase they got sucked in by the marketing and then never pay any further attention to the sport..more TV coverage would get the fans in and make the NFL more $ over time... Rant over..back to OT.. on the bubble players need four pre-season games - look at our 4th and 5th receivers this year..we're going into the 3rd game and no one has a lock on the position. Teams keep saying that they have all year round conditioning but do the players stick to it? how many come back out of shape? playing carears are also short enough based on 16 games having 2 more games could make the average RB carear 3 years at best. Football is a tough sport and players need the rest and for the body to recover.
They're in the entertainment industry. At some point you reach a line where the pursuit of revenue negatively affects the product their putting out there. If it waters down the product, it's bad for business.
I agree with the bolded in general for sure. A poorer product would definitely be bad for business. But if you are reaching for more people that could balance out the slightly poorer product (from a revenue stand point). At some point the extra eyes/fans would be negated by a poor product, but I don't think it's 18 games. If it were 18 games and still 4 preseason games I'd probably disagree with an 18 game schedule. It's really not that much more football for the players though. It is certainly more and some more wear, but I'm really not sure how much. I'm not even sure that 18 games would water down the on-field product. I would hope it doesn't, and I hope they get expanded rosters (whether practice squad becomes part of regular roster, I don't know) and that those prove fruitful (from a development standpoint).
I would enjoy watching 2 more "meaningful" games per season, but they'll never get this past the NFLPA, it would dilute the money available for the players to divvy up. In other words, players would likely make less money. JMVHO
I don't understand why a fan would not want to see more games. If I could get all the teams I follow to play more games, that would be excellent! The games are what we want to see, why not? I do laugh at the players suggesting their salaries need to go up if they're playing more matches, however. They're already overpaid to high hell and their yearly salaries increase double-digits; way more than the inflation index. They're salaries have been bloated for awhile now, sorry if I don't empathize with the crusade for "more money" due to more games being played. Oddly they don't seem to mention that it involves removal of some preseason games, thus mitigating the actual increased workload. The injury thing is a poor argument, IMO. Injuries can happen even in preseason games; it can even happen when you play flag football with your buddies (right steve smith?) The point is you're not guaranteeing more injuries, you're just opening up the exposure to the possibility. Increasing the possibility and/or exposure does not mean increasing the injuries - injuries happen and are part of the game. That's why these guys get paid millions - it isn't because they look good in spandex & pads. It's hazard pay; it's built in to their compensation, IMO.
I care less about the motives of the NFL and more about what I get to see. But yes, I think you're right - this is 100% about money, nothing more. It positively affects me in that I can watch my guys play 2 more meaningful games a year, so I'm in. I don't care if it's not as "fair" to the millionaire players. Let's be real here, we love those guys but we're more concerned with ourselves and our ability to take in our team, right?
I love it 1. 2 more games to watch is awesome 2. It's still only 18 games so every game is still important 3. agree with the expanding rosters 4. agree with the 2 bye weeks 5. agree with the season starting on time and ending in late February 2 questions I have 1. Who are the extra 2 games against...same conference? same division? other conference? 2. Does any of this change in Winter Olympic years when the Super Bowl will be going aganst the Winter Olympics ...ie 2014,2018